Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:GNG requires reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus here is that the local newspapers that are frequency cited are not sufficiently independent, and no other significant sources have been presented. -Scottywong | confess _ 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources used on this article are not even one step separated from Georgetown University. There is nothing notable about this group. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, as I've said about other articles recently nominated, I think there is a genuine misunderstanding about the nature of student and local journalism here. The nominator is lumping in both newspapers like The Hoya, which does receive support from the school, with local ones that don't, like The Georgetown Voice and The Georgetown Metropolitan. There's an NBC news featurette that's no longer available, thought its accompanying story was archived. Overall, this is notable much in the way other city EMT groups are, this is just the one that serves Georgetown University Hospital and NW DC.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if The Hoya does not get support from the school. The Hoya is still the local newspaper for the school which is affiliated with the school in all matters. This medical service is in no way notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just think that the idea of an affiliation between this EMT service and the newspapers is being overstated. And about the NBC reference you removed today, like I said above, the TV news story in which GERMS was prominently featured is no longer hosted on their site, so I'm not sure what do about it other than to link to the archived page where it had been available.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NBC link did not mention GERMS at all. That's why it was removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several other sources beyond the student newspaper as stated by Patrickneil. --Patrick (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without giving an opinion about the article itself (I have commented on others elsewhere and am waiting to see if some can be brought up to scratch) I would like to make a suggestion: a good start would be to remove all the references from The Hoya and other on-campus student sources so that you can argue your case against only reliable, independent sources. Link spamming reference from The Hoya is only going to make other editors think (rightly or wrongly) that the article fails WP:GNG and that involved (in some cases openly COI) editors are trying to create notability where it does not exist. Whether you agree or not, consensus seems to be that those sources are not independent. Given the article for The Hoya openly says the paper has financial links to the University, tried to cut them and failed, it is easy to see how that conclusion could be drawn. Get rid of them, build your case with the independent sources you say exist and these articles will all be saved. The reality is that if an article relies (entirely) on The Hoya to meet the "significant coverage" tag then it probably fails WP:GNG already, regardless of independence. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete To keep this, there needs to be an assertion of notability that lifts this above the dozens of other ambulance services in the area. If you could get a MSM source or something like that saying that a student-run service like this was remarkable, then I think there would be reason to keep it. Right now I don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. I would like to see more discussion about Stalwart111's comment, and also about how the sources in the article fare with regard to WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note: I was meaning to add this relisting comment before Mangoe's comment above, but got sidetracked.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111 posted that same comment on several of the deletion requests in this category, and I'm not sure I have much new to say. The user derides use of student and local newspapers as "link spamming", claiming some consensus against them that I am unaware of, and argues that the newspapers are somehow a product of this EMT group by shear proximity. There was a televised news report about this group, but User:Ryulong removed that reference, and I'm not sure how to reference it since the video is no longer hosted online. Other than that, the most mainstream source I've added is The Washington Times, but I don't think a user like Stalwart111 will be satisfied until everything below his standards, like The Hoya, is struck from Wikipedia.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't deny the fact that overusing the student newspaper as a source is not helpful when it's about something from the same campus. It seems like the notability of everything on the Georgetown campus is being supported by Georgetown sources, giving us 2 page reports on all of the student organizations. There isn't this much coverage of my alma mater's Iron Arrow Honor Society, and they were the subject of a Supreme Court case.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Patrick but that's a pretty clear (and mischievous) misreading of my comments here and elsewhere. The only paper I mentioned above was The Hoya and I didn't make any comment about other local non-student papers which are clearly independent reliable sources. Where there is coverage from non-student papers, that should be sourced. Where the coverage is by students, of students, for students (of the same University) then it doesn't help to try and use only those to establish notability against WP:GNG. If you want to continue to argue that the subjects all meet WP:GNG even where they are basically only covered in one questionably-independent student paper, you are free to do so. My point about "link-spamming" was that it looked like those who created the pages knew theymight struggle to meet WP:GNG and so filled the reflist with articles from The Hoya to counter that perception. The consensus against considering The Hoya an independent source was fairly clear in a number of those discussions. You are free to argue against that consensus both there and here. But those arguing FOR The Hoya as an independent source didn't seem to be having much luck, so my suggestion was that proponents should try to establish notability (if they think it can be) without using The Hoya. If it can, great, end of discussion. If it can't be, then we should have a further discussion about the context in which The Hoya and other student papers should be considered. I certainly did not claim the newspapers were a "product" of the EMT group - only that it was a struggle to make the case that a paper with financial ties to the university could be considered independent of other organisations that are part of the same broad university organisation. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think it should be obvious that the student paper is not evidence towards general notability. As I said above, I would expect some outside-the-university reason as to why we would include this service when ordinarily an ambulance service wouldn't be considered notable simply for existing. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reliable source is a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG - "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Of course student news papers publish corrections. Regarding Stalwart111's comment, there's plenty of reliable source material in the article itself for the topic per WP:GNG. The sourced article has plenty of depth and that depth came from the sources, so I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH as an issue. If The Hoya doesn't write about the Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service the medical service won't respond to The Hoya staff's medical needs? No. The Hoya has editorial independence from Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service (e.g., the service doesn't dictate content of The Hoya) and no one has brought forth any conflicts of interest (potential for personal, financial, or political gain from The Hoya) regarding Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service. The Hoya is independent of the topic. Reliable sources publish information, Wikipedia summarizes that information. It's a fairly straight forward process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While The Hoya can be used to source statements about Georgetown University organizations, it shouldn't be used as a notability metric because they are both entities within the same organization, even if there is some separation between them.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict of interest is fairly obvious, I thought, looking even at the article for The Hoya which says it is not financially independent of the University. In fact, some of the news articles used as sources by the WP article talk about lobbying of the University, by The Hoya, for funding for the subject (and by the board, in the interests of its student readers, not editorial lobbying). And that is perfectly fine - it should be perfectly fine. We should expect student papers to operate in their reader's best interests (as non-student papers do). But WP:GNG requires independent sources to verify notability. The fact that the newspaper engages in fact-checking (a fact not disputed by the way) does not does not automatically mitigate potential conflicts of interest, surely? Without references from The Hoya, some of the articles were without sources altogether so notability against WP:GNG simply could not be established. There is no question as to the reliability of the source in an editorial sense, but I don't think it could be considered independent. If there is an alternate view, even an alternate consensus, that's fine by me. But given (at other AfDs) there were a number of people who expressed the same view, I suggested (here and elsewhere) that other sources be found to verify notability (if they could be). In some cases that has happened, in other cases, not. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it's worth having a read of WP:UNI/AG with particular reference to the "Reliable Sources" section. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have satisfactory coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Georgetown-related coverage is inapplicable because of the close connection through the GU community, especially since such coverage does not indicate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as described in WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete local organisations can be notable , but if they engage in only local activities it is not likely. Local sources will cover them as a matter of course. This coverage is not selective, purely routine, and therefore indiscriminate. Thus it does not show notability. In a sense, that's a technical argument, because we ourselves define what we consider a reliable source according to what we want to consider notable enough for an article. I do not think it notable enough, so I use a restrictive definition. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.