Talk:Longshore Sailing School

Deletion

I, the creator of this article, object to its deletion because it is notable. Specifically, it teaches a large number students every year, around two thousand. It also has good regional reach, very good for a sailing school. I will admit that I am biased, as I am affiliated with it. -- Rmrfstar 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs better cites/refs for notability

WP:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence. As it was written, the article lacked any reliable or verifiable sources. Even as currently written, the only statement in the article that might convey notability is that it "has the largest sailing program for children in the country" from a 2006 article in a local community newspaper with a circulation of 10,000. Additionally, I cannot access the source article, so I'm not confident that this meets reliable or verifiable sources. A search on the newspaper's website for any article about the school results in zero hits. If the claim "the largest sailing program for children in the country" is verified in reliable sources and the cites/refs are strengthened, then it would make a better article. As it stands, it still hasn't proved notability. Regards. -Daddy.twins (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

References/Cites -

• 1) Unable to verify - Wiser, Alex, "Longshore Sailing Welcomes 'Aussie Luke'". Linked to article statements, "one of the largest of its kind in the United States" and trivial mentions of what the school rents, course descriptions, instructor locations.
• 2) Unable to verify - Glynn, John, "Local Sports" column, Greenwich Time newspaper from 2006. Linked to article statements, "has the largest sailing program for children in the country" and trivial mentions of what the school rents, course descriptions, that instructors are certified, number of students.
• 3) Trivial, "Full Sail for the 45th Season" - 2005 Picture of founder
• 4) Trivial, 1999 article - Kantor celebrates his 35th year of running Longshore Sailing School in Westport

--Daddy.twins (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Wiser, Alex, "Longshore Sailing Welcomes 'Aussie Luke'" is available for purchase: [1]

• Comment - The short abstract looks like a short article talking about a new Australian instructor joining in 2003. "...Longshore Sailing School, currently in its 44th season, has welcomed the addition of Luke Owen to its 2003 staff...". I don't think this amounts to significant coverage. --Daddy.twins (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Glynn, John, "Local Sports" column could be this article (though the date is off by one day), which does not support the cited statement.

I'd have to agree with Daddy.twins that these sources do not establish notability. Compare them to the press page of a sailing school that is clearly notable (but does not have a Wikipedia entry). Jfire (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jfire, for trying to find sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you follow Wikipedia policy? Sources do not have to be available online to be sources. I got the sources through Newsbank.com, but I might just as easily have found them in a library. I'll email a copy to anyone who asks for it. But I don't know why you would trust that because you don't trust me now. Nevertheless, if you want it, ask. Both sources, by the way, gave more than trivial coverage, which is part of WP:N and WP:ORG.Noroton (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here are two more schools that have claims at being the "largest sailing school in the country. [2] Since local newspapers are unlikely to know one way or the other which school is the largest in the country, I'll remove that statement from the lead. I would caution howerver, that not being the largest sailing school in the country does not make a school nonnotable. That's a matter of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Did I mention that? Noroton (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let's take it easy on this. I think we're working hard to establish the notability of this school using policies like reliable sources and verifiability. I have viewed every cite, reference, and link in the article, as well as, tried to find additional secondary sources. The issue is that, so far, there is very little to go on. Of the four references, #3 (picture) and #4 (1999 article) do not establish notability, #2 ("Aussie Luke" article) seems to be about an Australian instructor joining the staff in 2003 which is not notable. The final statement towards notability ("has the largest sailing program for children in the country") comes from a two-year old article in a low circulation, local newspaper. I think this is an exceptional claim towards notability and requires a certain burden of evidence. If that can be provided, then I see no problem with notability. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noroton, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that we didn't trust you; it's certainly not the case for me. In fact, I thank you for doing what I was too cheap to do, buying the article (or perhaps you have institutional access?). Anyway, certainly free online availability is not a prerequisite for reliability. It's just that when judging notability in a seemingly marginal case, we want to make sure that we accurately represent the sources we do have. What I was looking for was maybe the specific quote from the article that supports the claim of being the largest. Of course, you are right that it wouldn't definitively settle the matter either way. It's just one data point. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, could you verify whether this article is the same one as you had found and cited? Jfire (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Daddy.twins, Jfire, I'll repeat what I said in the AfD just now, with a bit more detail:

1. You're citing WP:N, WP:RS but they don't make the requirements you're making.
2. Nothing in either policy or any other says that local newspapers are not reliable sources. In fact, longstanding practice is to accept them as reliable sources. They meet the common definitions of reliable sources and can be used as such even on sensitive WP:BLP articles. I know because I defended that point in discussion on the WP:BLP talk page. There is no circulation requirement.
3. WP:V doesn't mean you have to be able to verify it online. It may even mean you have to find the local library that keeps the microfilm.
4. Whether or not the school is the largest in the country is a separate matter from whether the school meets WP:N notability requirements. It doesn't even have to be nationally notable.
5. ("Aussie Luke" article) seems to be about an Australian instructor joining the staff in 2003 which is not notable. Please check the "General notability guideline" section of WP:N: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The footnote at the end of this sentence states: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial. I originally passed by the "Aussie Luke" article because the title suggested that it didn't contain more than trivial coverage. Then I read it. The article said quite a bit about the school in a way that the guideline did not indicate was trivial. There's room for interpretation here. I've offered to email the entire contents of both articles to anyone who wants them. Any takers?
6. I would post the entire contents of both articles on this talk page but that would violate copyright law, even if we removed the articles, but emailing to a few people is within copyright law.
7. Two good sources providing substantial coverage fits the definition of multiple sources. Noroton (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More points:

1. Yes, jfire, that appears to be the article, but I read the whole thing.
2. I have access to Newsbank.com through my public library, which allows me to access that website online for free. If any of you have library cards, you might check to see if you also have access to that website or others.
3. Thank you for telling me you assume good faith, daddy.twins. That was good to read. Noroton (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point:

1. Not that it makes it notable or anything, but the New York Times gave it this brief mention (which counts as "trivial" under the Wikipedia notability guideline) in an article about Westport, Connecticut: At Longshore, residents pay $75 for year-round golf privileges (plus $6 greens fees), $15 for summer pool membership and $40 to play all year on nine clay tennis courts. The park also has rental cottages and a nationally renowned sailing school, where fees range from $105 for 30 hours of sailing for juniors to $105 for 12 hours of sailing for adults. I don't know if this article is available outside their subscription wall (sometimes they are, sometimes not, and I can't tell), but here's the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D8173CF936A35751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print From: "If You're Thinking of Living in: Westport" February 5, 1989, by John Arundel. Noroton (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I really think you were misconstruing my concerns. I don't believe that I made any extreme requirements for notability, reliable sources, or verifiability. The article made an exceptional claim (the largest sailing program for children in the country). My understanding of verifiability includes the statement, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.". I don't want to quibble on whether or not the article was properly cited with all the correct punctuation, but focus on the larger issue - to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content. While your offer of emailing the source article is noted, it certainly wouldn't be feasible to do so for every person who ever reads the article in the future. In the meantime, it appears that you agree that this is a largely unproveable claim and have removed it from the article. In that case, the one possible claim to notability (in my opinion) has been removed which makes supporting any notability nearly impossible.

I do see that you have added additional sources, but they don't help a whole lot.

• The Everything Family Guide to the Caribbean By Jason Rich has an entry on the Bitter End Yacht club in the British Virgin Islands. In speaking about the sailing school at that club, the entry makes a single parenthetical statement - (... operated by John Kantor, the foremost leader in sailing education and founder of the Longshore Sailing School ...)

• The North Soundings article is again about the Bitter End Yacht club and simply states, [John Kantor's] stateside schools (Longshore Sailing Schools) educate thousands of sailors each year.

Neither of these articles add any notability to Longshore Sailing School by simply mentioning the name of the school. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misconstruing any of your concerns. The additional sources weren't meant to add to notability, they were meant to add to the article. WP:V does not mean and never has meant that you need to be able to find the source online for free or at your local library. If a source was in a book that your library or Google Books didn't have, you'd have to buy the book or travel to some library to get it. What's the difference? Wikipedia sourcing would be constrained quite a bit if we had the standard you think we have. the one possible claim to notability (in my opinion) has been removed which makes supporting any notability nearly impossible Take a look just above your post to the New York Times quote. Personally I don't think much of it, but you should, given what you've written. Sorry, being nationally notable isn't the Wikipedia notability requirement. If editors creating articles had to guess at the notability standards of individual editors who happened to wander into deletion debates, no one would bother creating most articles and we would have endless deletion debates. Noroton (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I never said that anything had to be nationally notable to be notable. What I was trying to get across was if a school (or an article about it) claims national notability as this one did, then that claim needs to be backed up. You have removed that claim stating "not really something a local newspaper would tend to know" ... so I see that we agree on that. No need to further belabor a point that we agree on.

The New York Times quote adds nothing. It is primarily an article about the Longshore Country Club, not the sailing school. There is one sentence that may refer to LSS, but it doesn't even mention it by name, "The park also has rental cottages and a nationally renowned sailing school, where fees range from ..."

There is still nothing in the article, as it is currently written, that establishes any notabiltiy for this school --Daddy.twins (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:ORG require reliable, independent, preferrably multiple sources that give more than just a tiny bit of coverage. The two sources I first added to this article meet that standard. I have four footnotes from each of those two sources in the article. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Noroton (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how notability applies in this case. My reading of WP:N includes received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; and, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I still see nothing in any of the cites that are more than incidental coverage - either mentioning classes and rates, or mentioning that some other sailing school employs the founder of this school. We agreed that the claim of being the largest sailing program for children in the country was not verifiable, and you chose to remove it. To me, the remainder of the article doesn't rise to significant, non-trivial coverage. --Regards. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)