Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Rescue

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.

Solent Rescue

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) InvadingInvader (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one source, written like an advertisement, possible COI, potentially fails the GNG. The sole purpose of the article seems to promote a business; Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator article has been sufficiently improved and addressed its main concerns. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original creator of the article, User:Anthony Appleyard, is apparently deceased. As such, he will not be participating in this discussion. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can probably rewrite it, a few sources for the various rescues they've done.Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. It’s hard to find sources because “Solent rescue” is a term used as a part of a description as well as to refer to this organization specifically. For example if someone is recused from the Solent many news articles will describe it as a Solent rescue, but the rescue in said source would not involve this group, leading to a false positive. That happened with a lot of sources. With that said, here are some sources I have found:

They recieved a Queen’s Award and got coverage for that[1][2] (These two cover the same Queen’s Award but I don’t know if one is more reliable than the other),
Here is another article from the Southern Daily Echo about a grant they received.
Here is an article about them and a new donated lifeboat
this document from the Solent Forum mentions them briefly
here is information about a grant they received from the government.
There is also this book which appears to go into some detail explaining the organization, but I can’t read beyond the snippet view so I can’t be sure how much detail it goes into.
According to this clipping they were featured on Channel 5, but I can’t find the video (and don’t even really know where to look) but they were featured there, presumably in detail as it was an hour long program

The pieces about the Queen's Award are absolutely significant coverage, and from what I can see of the book and what I can gather of the Channel 5 piece leads me to believe that they too are significant coverage of the article's subject. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject checks off all the criteria of WP:GNG. The pieces about the donation, the grant, and the Solent Forum document aren't what I'd call significant coverage, but I also wouldn't put them in the trivial coverage category, they're kind of in between in that there is detail to be gleaned from the references that can be used in the article, and because of that I do think that they contribute to the notability, especially when combined with the other sources that are significant. I am so very outside of my comfort zone with this topic in that I know absolutely nothing about it, but I suspect that someone who knows where they should be looking would be able to find even more sources, though I do think what I've posted above shows notability. I am very sorry this keep rationale got so long, but I wanted to fully explain myself as best as I could. So it seems to be a keep for what I can see. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Substantially enhanced since nominated for AfD to contain sources that verify the notability that was present previously, albeit unverified. The AfD has caused the enhancement by drawing it to the community's attention. Request the nominator considers withdrawing the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has the minimum level of sources to pass GNG and remain here --不和の林檎 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2022 (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.