Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation

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

foundation of questionable notablity WuhWuzDat 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spent some time on Google looking at this foundation. Seems to have significant involvement with enviromental and social issues in the Canadian arctic. Article itself is well done. Seki1949 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I happen to think that, at a bare minimum it needs copyediting with a chainsaw, and possibly a bulldozer and/or flamethrower. WuhWuzDat 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why the hundreds of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed in the nomination are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It would be nice if the user Wuhwuzdat would not bite the newcomer, if you think it needs to be edited for it to be clearer and more concise I invite you to do so. The references and links are all valid and credible, also the foundation seems to be fairly important to major issues in Canada further bolstering its importance to remain on wikipedia. 15688577a (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 15688577a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - This foundation has been around for nearly half a century and has clearly left an imprint worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A fairly well done article to boot, not spammy in the least. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (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.