Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Speed

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 keep. Skomorokh 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Speed

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

The pressure group Safe Speed does not reach the notability criteria for organizations and companies - coverage of the group by secondary sources is trivial and incidental, and depth of coverage is not substantial. It is not truly a group, but the work of a single woman and her late husband - it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Kouros (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and a particularly scathing critique here. Not to mention founder Paul Smith's (and his wife) many television and radio appearances over a period of many years, details of which may be found here. Coverage of this organisation is by no means trivial, or incidental, and I am unaware of any rules on notability that mention the size of a group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add this to the list of sources which mentions Safespeed and its founder, Paul Smith. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paul Smith was (briefly) quoted in the UK news media, resulting in a fairly detailed review of their claims by consumer magazine Which?, unusual for a group like this; per WP:BLP it is right to cover this under the name of the group. It was always a one-man band, true, and the fifteen minutes of fame ended quite some time ago, but in the brief period before everybody realised that the sciencey talk was all smoke and mirrors (Smith repeatedly refused to submit his work for peer-review) they were just about the only source quoted against the mainstream view on speed enforcement and there are some in the Provisional ABD who actually believe the absurd one in three and 12mph claims, as well as crediting him for the long-established regression to the mean principle described in Death On The Streets a decade before Smith "invented" it. Yes, barking mad and grossly intellectually dishonest but still has obsessive followers even today. Anyone interested in my biases and involvement can see my website page on Smith. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A frequent editor of this article, Parrot of Doom, has been posting into the SafeSpeed site. He pleads with other posters to "please don't edit this entry if you're not a regular Wikipedia contributor". He acknowledges that if they do, then "what I'm doing here may then be viewed as canvassing opinion". However, he does ask for "evidence to support the case for keeping this article". I'd politely suggest that Parrot of Doom has indeed "canvassed for opinion", and we should consider that activity when judging the validity of the article. Basingwerk (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) - PS this is not to "teach PofD a lesson" or anything like that. PofD is doing a sterling job in protecting the site. But I want to make it public that the site has been approached in this way, which distorts things, in my humble opinion.[reply]
- I was not canvassing for opinion. I was asking contributors to that forum for evidence that I could use in this discussion, and to date one forum member has responded to that request. Besides which, activity outside Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion unless anyone from that forum turns up in this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding, PofD. The response concerns a book by Chris Booker, who has in the past has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". So, that's all very helpful for cranks, but it's not the type of thing we are looking for on Wiki. In fact, it's just opinion (IMHO!), not based on science at all. On the other hand, perhaps it makes the site "notable", but not as a rational road safety organization. Can it be put under a category for "Anti-science belief systems", or some such thing? PS: Guy's comments on "obsessive followers" ring true in this regard. Again, is it a valid road safety group, or a grudge site? PPS: you didn't ask for "evidence that I could use in this discussion". You specifically asked for evidence that supports keeping it. That is the source of the bias.

- - My posting the link to the book was unrelated to the content of the article, and discussion of which category this article should be placed under is irrelevant here. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? I believe it is. Do not accuse me of underhand tactics again, it is insulting and wrong. I have no interest in seeing this article deleted, and therefore will not ask for evidence to that effect. Talk about whatever you like, notability is the discussion here, and publication in sources such as the afore-mentioned book helps assert it. By the way, you have not stated your reason for wanting the article deleted, which renders it worthless. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I am publicizing your support for SafeSpeed ("Paul, you have my support on your campaign..."). Also, please strive for articles that advocate no single point of view, whatever your personal tastes. This means that you must be even-handed when asking for evidence (do not go on more "fishing trips"). Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer. Please take these views into account when judging the suitability of this article. It's depth of coverage is not substantial anymore. It is not truly a group, but the work of Paul Smith, it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Basingwerk (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: it might be sufficient to talk of the "group" in the past tense; as its influence only existed briefly. While the "site" still exists, the "campaign" died when Paul Smith did.[reply]
      - (indent)I couldn't give a flying inflatable pig what you think of my private views. It is my actions on this project that count. Whether or not I support Safespeed is irrelevant. I have deleted swathes of material from that page that could be seen to be supportive of the group, but as it was unreferenced it went in the bin. You appear to be quite deluded as to the purpose of this discussion. If you are going to make claims of bias or a lack of neutrality in this discussion, provide diffs and entries I have made to do so, or stop right now before people with thinner skin than I start taking notice. For anyone else who may be interested, I am the third largest contributor to this start-class article. Frankly I have more important articles to attend to. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer", as far as Wikipedia is concerned notability is not temporary. Abraham Lincoln didn't stop being notable when he died and if, as you just said, the group were notable at one point, they still are regardless of their current level of influence. Nev1 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already dealt with that, Nev1. We speak of Lincoln in the past tense. It might be sufficient to talk of SafeSpeed in the past tense. SafeSpeed is synonymous with its founder, who is dead. The article doesn't faithfully convey it's demise. Furthermore, while WP:NTEMP, relevance is temporary. If the power of SafeSpeed is diminished, then it is no longer a pressure group but merely a web site, that used to run a campaign. It becomes an historical event. The web site is something different, but SafeSpeed's glory days are over (for good?)

If you feel the article needs improvement, then improve it. If you don't want to, then don't bother. But don't try asserting that just because it could stand a bit of spit and polish it should be deleted, because that rationale would see more than half the en.wiki articles disappear overnight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the group was notable does not really seem to be in dispute, and as notability is not temporary, as Nev1 says, then this group remains notable. I also find the unfounded accusations of a lack of neutrality in the writing to be risible. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PofD - did you pledge your support to the SafeSpeed campaign, or not? If so, the lack of neutrality exists in the "writer", not the "writing", doesn't it? I've already responded to Nev1's point, so Malleus_Fatuorum is adding nothing new.Basingwerk (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: and let's have a little less of the "old boy's club" as well, please.[reply]

I suggest that you watch your mouth Basingwerk. If you want to make any accusations then please have the courage to do so openly. Your logic appears to be no better than your manners. We are supposed to be judging the writing, not the writer, although it is clear from your comments that you have not yet internalised that fundamental difference. Whether PoD did or did not "pledge support" to the Safe Speed campaign has no bearing on that. I might as well question your motivations for wanting this article deleted. Did you "pledge support" to another group promising that you would have it deleted? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MF. No, I pledged support to no-one. But we know that PoD did pledge support to the Safe Speed campaign. If you have read something into that, then that is in your own mind. Would you prefer not to know things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've been a little hasty. I'm not saying that PofD is a bad man - far from it, I'm sure he's ace. He really gets stuck in. He can edit any wiki article he likes, but he has chosen to aggressively protect the article of a group that he supports politically. I've said enough - ignore it as you wish. But (as a general note) "tough-guy" editors should not throw out one-sided invitations for evidence, nor should they they be involved with the groups concerned. Let's just use our common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've said too much. You have presented no argument for the deletion of this article. All you've done is sling some accusations around. Any more and I may take the issue elsewhere. I will not have people cast doubt upon my neutrality and commitment to this project. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs more RS refs adding but that appears to be easily sortable. Looks notable enough to me given the links PoD has brought to the discussion. As for the rest of the comments seen here... anyone smell anything coming from under that bridge over there? --WebHamster 18:02, 7 September 2009 (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.