Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta

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.

ACT Alberta

ACT Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails the notability criteria of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ACT Alberta stands for "Action Coalition on Human Trafficking." Did the nominator bother to check this? A Gnews search for the organization yields good enough results to meet ORG.
  talk) 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ghits =/= sources. Sources = sources. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources seem fine to me, for a charitable organization. (Updated a dead link.) -- Elmidae 08:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good amount of reliable sources. Cavarrone 12:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only real source is three-paragraph mention in Invisible Chains -- and the first paragraph of that mention was lifted wholesale for the article's "About" section. And for such an important organization, its listed acomplishments are mighty mighty thin. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I linked to above, this Gnews search clearly shows prominent coverage from news orgs across the province.
  talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - This isn't even a particularly close call: I found multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject organization in reliable, independent sources on the first results page of a Google News search. I am happy to start listing and linking them, if necessary, but instead I would urge the nominator to (a) review the applicable notability guidelines for organizations, i.e.,
  WP:BEFORE due diligence before filing any more AfDs related to the ongoing fallout from the wholesale creation of unnecessary and rather odd redirects by the creator of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no national coverage. Again, this is a LOCAL org and news coverage in its area does not establish notability.
  YO 😜 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But where is the policy that reliable sources must be "national"? Alberta is Canada's 4th most populous province, and coverage is not limited to one city only, therein. That doesn't meet "local" by any reasonable definition of the term -- not that "local" coverage is a reason to disregard GNG anyway.
  talk) 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please see
  YO 😜 18:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You mean the Afd that for the org that was notable, as I argued? As for

talk) 18:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, let me rephrase that somewhat: ACT is a province-wide group and has received significant coverage from news outlets in Edmonton, Calgary -- its two major cities -- as well as smaller centres. It is therefore clearly not "single city or metropolitan area" as prohibited by AUD.

talk) 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please go back and read that AfD and note the reason why it was withdrawn. It had nothing to do with your arguments for notability.

YO 😜 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I know why it was withdrawn and why you closed it. Anyway, my point about the inapplicability of

talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak delete. This outfit seems more notable than others in the same garden, but it's still very, very thin, with mostly mentions in (fairly) local media. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if it can be better improved as some of the listed sources may be signs of more coverage. If not, delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Where is the claim of notability here? They created a petition, contributed to a report, and got two grants, and most of the sources are not
  WP:RS or are self-published. I actually think this could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep - Looks like there's enough to pass
  WP:ORG. Some of these are already linked but here's what I turned up: Invisible Chains, LawNow magazine (HighBeam link), Edmonton Sun, Edmonton Sun (video, separate story), CBC's Radio Active podcast, Edmonton Journal, CBC News, Global News, Metro, Edmonton Examiner, Daily Herald Tribune, CBC News, Daily Herald Tribune... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. State or provincial organizations of this sort are rarely notable. I see insufficient evidence to consider this an exception DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For full transparency, this has been canvassed by SwisterTwister to DGG. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:CANVASSING is "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". While I don't quite get the context for this message from SwisterTwister on DGG's talk page, it doesn't look like canvassing. More like some AfDs that need more participation and someone who is known to be willing to participate. Also, DGG !voted delete and SwisterTwister !voted keep (well, tentatively), so even if it were canvassing, it would've been inconsequential. Nothing to see here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Canvassing doesn't guarantee outcome. All I know is that if I had done something like this, I'd have been banished from Wikipedia.
  Double standards anyone? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@MurderByDeadcopy:, at one time I tried to comment of all afds where I knew enough to say something useful. I cannot now do so, so I started trying to spot those that either were in subject fields I care about or that had multiple relistings about which I could try to get some consensus--or close. I no longer can scan them all myself even for this, and I ask SwisterTwister (and some other people) to notify me about a selection. I more frequently than not take the view ST does, but only about 2/3 of the time, and whether I am likely to or not doesn't seem to be the criterion ST is using--if it were, I'd discourage them from asking. Have you noticed also, the complete difference is the basis of our two arguments? ST tends to go by the GNG; I tend to use other considerations. ST usually searches for sources; I often analyze in more detail the ones that are presented. More generally, ever since I realized I couldn't do everything, I have deliberately decided to work first on problems people presented to me. By now they know that I will often not give the response they might be hoping for, or might be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where's the list? Please notify me anytime too! (FYI - If you are notified about an AfD, the one thing that you absolutely shouldn't be doing is closing them!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if I am notified about an AfD and the decision has been obviously made by the discussion, of course I may close it. People sometimes ask me specifically to do that, oor ask me to close a long -running discussion which is not obvious. I then do what I think fits the situation. I've been doing it for years. Is there some particular close you would like me to reconsider. What list are you referring to, btw. If you want to see prior notifications, look at my talk p. history. I do not keep them or even archive them after I have done with them. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]