- 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Canadian Equal Parenting Council
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Canadian Equal Parenting Council ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable. The ref in the Star was written by the organization's officer, and the other outside citations to it are mere mentions DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This AfD nomination did not follow the WP:NPP guidelines. Those state that (i) Searching first for sources before nominating an article for an AfD discussion is crucial, and that (ii) You should mention in your (AfD) nomination rationale what attempts you made to look for sources and the results of your efforts. There is no such mention and using a couple of standard databases, it took less than 2 minutes to find dozens of additional media sources covering the organization. The nominator accurately describes the four outside media sources in the original version of the article, but was clearly unaware of these additional sources, some of which I have added to the article. Martinogk ( talk) 10:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Per WP:NONPROFIT (i) As a federation of local affiliates, the organization has national scope, with media mentions across both urban and rural Canada, including e.g. Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor, Saint John, Yellowknife, Barrie, Oshawa, Alliston and Portage La Prairie. (ii) Coverage in multiple reliable media sources, many but not all by independent journalists, and significant in the sense that the organization is cited in articles about the topic on which it is active rather than passing mentions in articles about something else. (iii) Some international coverage. (iv) Additional newspaper, academic, book and web sources exist, but the article already has citation overkill. Martinogk ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator. Reliance on primary sources won’t cut it. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Trillfendi, Thank you for taking the time to comment. Can you explain how newspaper articles written by journalists are primary sources? I am e.g. thinking of the Toronto Star (Pigg 2009), the National Post (Kay 2010,14; Blackwell 2010), Laval News (Barry, 2009), Le Journal de Montréal (Agence QMI, 2011), the Yellowknifer (McMillan 2010, Campbell 2011), the Telegraph-Journal (Nabuurs 2011), the Windsor Star (Wilhelm 2006; newspaper written editorial 2006), the Star Tribune (Rosenblum 2013) and the Globe and Mail (Makin 2009)? Martinogk ( talk) 14:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Two problems here. First of all, there is no plausible claim of notability in the article. Qualifying plausible claims could include well-referenced claims that the organization is large and influential on a national scale. Second of all, there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources regarding the association itself. The sources appear to be passing mentions and articles that use the organization and its members as a source of quotations. Uninvited Company 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Canadian Equal Parenting Council
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Canadian Equal Parenting Council ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable. The ref in the Star was written by the organization's officer, and the other outside citations to it are mere mentions DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This AfD nomination did not follow the WP:NPP guidelines. Those state that (i) Searching first for sources before nominating an article for an AfD discussion is crucial, and that (ii) You should mention in your (AfD) nomination rationale what attempts you made to look for sources and the results of your efforts. There is no such mention and using a couple of standard databases, it took less than 2 minutes to find dozens of additional media sources covering the organization. The nominator accurately describes the four outside media sources in the original version of the article, but was clearly unaware of these additional sources, some of which I have added to the article. Martinogk ( talk) 10:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Per WP:NONPROFIT (i) As a federation of local affiliates, the organization has national scope, with media mentions across both urban and rural Canada, including e.g. Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor, Saint John, Yellowknife, Barrie, Oshawa, Alliston and Portage La Prairie. (ii) Coverage in multiple reliable media sources, many but not all by independent journalists, and significant in the sense that the organization is cited in articles about the topic on which it is active rather than passing mentions in articles about something else. (iii) Some international coverage. (iv) Additional newspaper, academic, book and web sources exist, but the article already has citation overkill. Martinogk ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator. Reliance on primary sources won’t cut it. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Trillfendi, Thank you for taking the time to comment. Can you explain how newspaper articles written by journalists are primary sources? I am e.g. thinking of the Toronto Star (Pigg 2009), the National Post (Kay 2010,14; Blackwell 2010), Laval News (Barry, 2009), Le Journal de Montréal (Agence QMI, 2011), the Yellowknifer (McMillan 2010, Campbell 2011), the Telegraph-Journal (Nabuurs 2011), the Windsor Star (Wilhelm 2006; newspaper written editorial 2006), the Star Tribune (Rosenblum 2013) and the Globe and Mail (Makin 2009)? Martinogk ( talk) 14:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Two problems here. First of all, there is no plausible claim of notability in the article. Qualifying plausible claims could include well-referenced claims that the organization is large and influential on a national scale. Second of all, there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources regarding the association itself. The sources appear to be passing mentions and articles that use the organization and its members as a source of quotations. Uninvited Company 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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.