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 delete. czar 01:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Alberta Association of Architects

Alberta Association of Architects (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Unsourced since 2006. WP:BEFORE reveals a decent number of search results, but they are almost all passing mentions. The best sources I could find from clicking on about 20 newspaper articles and books were this PR piece and this one paragraph in an encyclopedia. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is only sourced to the subject's own website. We cannot hae such things on Wikipedia. Zelnhelmthegreat ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  Zelnhelmthegreat I feel that is an argument in bad faith, this is an official organization that accredits architects. There is no question about whether the organization exists or not. Clearly the existence of the organization is not OR, it is basically a government organization. The question is rather whether it is notable per WP:ORG. -- hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• comment we have articles about many other such organizations which are all quasi-government organizations and are all weak on sourcing. Point in case Ontario Association of Architects and Ordre des architectes du Québec. If they were private organizations we would probably delete them, but here they have quasi-government status since they regulate the profession and are probably notable due to that. -- hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Other stuff exists is not an argument to keep an article. We need to have adequate indepdent sourcing on this organization. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet our inclusion criteria, their presence is no argument to keep other such organizations having articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete The article hasn’t been updated or sourced in 15 years and would otherwise be an easy call for deletion. Because it is affiliated with the provincial government, there is reason to reconsider. But I still support deletion for lack of verifiable information and notability. ABT021 ( talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (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.