Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises

Comment

AdamSEOWorks (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:SeagullTrustLogo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SeagullTrustLogo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate changes

Would you please reinstate the changes that were made to the page yesterday. They were updates to incorrect information

Ian Young Vice Chairman Seagull Trust Cruises Ijyoung (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed (include citations):

In the second sentence in paragraph 1, change The Seagull Trust to Seagull Trust Cruises

• Why it should be changed:

Because that is the charities proper name.

In paragraph 3 change: From these locations, it operates eight canal boats, adapted with a lift for wheelchair access, and fitted with a galley and toilet. Seven operate daily excursions; one (the Marion Seagull) is adapted as a residential boat for hire to families with a disabled member.[5] The Wooden Spoon Seagull is fitted out as a floating classroom. To: From these locations, it operates nine canal boats, two at Falkirk, one at Inverness and three each at Kirkintilloch and Ratho. All are adapted with a lift for wheelchair access, and fitted with a galley and toilet and operate daily excursions between April and September/October depending on the individual branch.

• Why it should be changed:

The changes reflect changes to the fleet. Ijyoung (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC) I hope this meets with your criteria

The link you provide demonstrates the charity name, but not the material in the longer passage above. Copying in Tacyarg who was recently active on this article. Axad12 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how I can supply you with verification.

Woodenspoon Seagull was sold in 2021.

You could look at the website where all the current boats are featured - Seagulltrust.org.uk

Marion Seagull has been the subject of a huge renovation programme carried out by the branch - which will form part of a further addition. She was formally re launched by the Princess Royal. Full details in new article.

FYI, Since the organisation became a charity, both its name and mission were change. It is no longer a Trust - that is all on the website.

Ian Ijyoung (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ian,

The issue here is that unless information can be verified from independent sources it can't be included on Wikipedia (see the relevant policy here, WP:VERIFY). The onus there is on the person requesting the change, i.e. yourself.

To be honest I'm not convinced that the material you are trying to change actually belongs on Wikipedia at all. It's the sort of thing that one would expect to find on an organisation's own website, but not on an encyclopaedia.

In broad brush terms, saying "The subject of this article is a charity, the main activity of which is x, y and z" is encyclopaedic.

But talking about the specific features of the boats, how often they operate, from where and in which months, does not seem encyclopaedic. If anything it looks promotional.

At present, almost the entirety of the current article is completely unsourced and could be subject to deletion at any time.

It looks to me as though the article is currently being used to webhost non Wikipedia-compliant material that ought to be covered on the charity's own website, but is not, and thus is probably going to be impossible to verify. Consequently the current article probably breaches several Wikipedia policies.

Most of the present article was installed back in 2010 by a single purpose account, MichaelGlancy, who provided no sourcing at all. The lack of verification was flagged as long ago as 2022 and remains unresolved.

I would strongly advise that the article be dramatically reduced in length, that the removed material be installed on the charity's own website so that it can be accessible from Wikipedia via a link at the bottom of the article. Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

That doesnt explain why you wont make the changes to the first part.

How do we remove the page in its entirety? Ijyoung (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ian,

Just a further note which will hopefully be of assistance to you…

Let me say first of all that I don’t doubt that the charity does a great deal of very important and excellent work and that I wish it all the very best in its activities.

However, the article here is certainly non-compliant in a number of ways:

1) As per the tag at the top of the article, at present it doesn’t seem clear that the subject is sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article (see the relevant policy here: WP:NORG).

2) As previously mentioned there is a significant lack of sourcing/references to allow verification of facts (WP:VERIFY), and I’m not sure that that sourcing could be obtained other than from non-independent sources (WP:RS).

3) The article seems to have been created and subsequently curated by a number of single purpose accounts, some (if not all) of whom would appear to have had undeclared conflicts of interest (e.g. MichaelGlancy, SeagullBrian 45, and at least two anonymous users editing via IP addresses).

4) There is certainly a large amount of non-encyclopaedic trivia in the article, e.g. references to rather obscure individuals and excessive minor points of detail which are not going to be of interest to the general reader.

As things currently stand, any editor encountering the article in its current state could theoretically nominate the article to be deleted (policy here: WP:DELETE). If that were to happen I imagine the chances of the article being deleted might be above 50%.

Personally I wouldn’t like to see that happen, and I’m sure nor would you, so I really do very strongly advice that you take some steps to try to resolve some of the points above:

i.e. addition of further independent links/articles/references to bolster the claim to notability, plus significant reduction in article length (primarily retaining only material that is capable of verification via independent sources, and certainly the removal of much trivia).

Hopefully the above notes and links to the relevant policies will be of assistance. Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Axad12. I'll see if I can find sources for this, unless Ijyoung can suggest any. Tacyarg (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)