Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Motor Association

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Canadian Automobile Association. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Motor Association[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Alberta Motor Association (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)

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources, save for one source, a book, which may provide some background and contextual organization on the organization; however, I'd point out, that's only one source. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Alberta Motor Association" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned or new products and services. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That would be trivial mentions, though, as I understand it. Notability is also not inherited. In terms of the sources you found, thanks. #1 may help to support background information, but sources #2-4 cover it only in a tangential way, which make passing reference, or which cover trivial matters (i.e., road safety campaign they sponsored). Doug Mehus (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. --Dreerwin (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh, this is one more in a related series of AFDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA Saskatchewan
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA South Central Ontario
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA-Quebec
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Automobile Association
and should be considered/closed similarly. Doug Mehus could you please indicate if there any more like this? This process seemed inefficient before (as maybe only one multi-item AFD was needed, tops), and now it seems worse. There was discussion and closure on some of the above. Do we need to round up duplicative discussion in a new round, now? --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Twinkle does not let you bundle AfDs, but no, this is the last of the related Canadian automobile association AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then do not use Twinkle. --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this in one in particular is the worst of the bunch so, while I probably could've combined CAA Saskatchewan, CAA-Quebec, and CAA South Central Ontario into one AfD, this one has even less sources available. Moreover, crucially, per my above, AMA doesn't release any sort of corporate reporting or history beyond brief anecdotes, so even if we wanted to write a detailed article using entirely primary sources, we couldn't. I'd note, too, that AMA's chartered bank subsidiary Bridgewater Bank recently passed unanimous AfD for deletion as it was not notable and failed WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. So, it should be evaluated separately from the other AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Glad to know there are not more. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and I would say "obviously". There is no dispute that the Alberta Motor Association exists, is very large, and has some basic history, including that there probably is some year of establishment, etc. Probably the minor amount of stuff about some fraud incident is wp:UNDUE and otherwise not worth mentioning. The basic facts of existence, etc., can be covered in a section covering the provincial subgroups at the main Canadian Automobile Association article. It is very sensible to leave a redirect behind, pointing to the correct section.
Arguments above for "deletion" of this, and probably arguments about the already-deleted Bridgewater Bank article, fail to address why redirects should not be kept, and why past content and contribution credits embedded in the edit history should not be saved. One reason being that future events, or discovery of much more reliably-sourced material, could lead to sensible restoration of these articles. And we are obligated to look for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, The past contributions for this article are not worth noting in the edit history, particularly since many of them may, or appear to have been done by, editorially conflicted editors who quite likely were operating on behalf of their employer or a company paid by their employer. The prose is not especially significant, either. Nothing worth noting in edit history. Also, a company is not "obviously notable"—you really should read WP:Notability in its entirety. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, Doncram does not make a claim of "obviously notable", he says that the obvious solution is to merge appropriate content into the larger, notable topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78.26, Well, he did say "obviously," following which he referenced how AMA "exists, is very large [...]," so the implication was that he thought it was obviously notable, but if that's not the case, that's fine. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to merge or a redirect as the existing prose in this article may not be worth salvaging. Plus, someone could easily just re-create a redirect. Nevertheless, we do seem to have near unanimity in terms of there not being sufficient reliable, independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH and standalone WP:Notability such that every person either favours delete, merge, or redirect. I guess my preference would be for the first, followed by the last, and ultimately, the middle of the trio of options as my third choice. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by "obvious" I meant it is obviously the right solution to merge the article, rather than to delete it. I've been going round on this with User:Dmehus at the other articles' AFDs and maybe elsewhere. They do not attach much weight, if any, to the importance of our adhering to Wikipedia's commitment to contributors. To me it is, well, obvious that we should comply with our obligations to assist in proper attribution/credit to authors that way.
And for other reasons it is good to keep the original articles (at least in edit history) rather than delete them outright. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more of those. Just one more reason is that preserving the edit history helps inform future editors if/when someone arrives and creates an article on the topic again. If it was outright deleted, then there is no way, or it is not simple, for other editors to find their way to this AFD discussion. The Talk page of the article, which would carry link to this AFD, would have been deleted. Any discussion at the Talk page and here will effectively have been lost, and cannot inform considerations about what to do with the new article. All judments about the relative merits of keeping/including various types of information would have been lost....including say my brilliant comment about preferring not to include the fraud stuff.
Also labelling the decision here as "merge" rather than "redirect" is better, is more descriptive, as long as we are in fact intending to merge some content from here into the CAA article. Choosing to say "redirect" would be petulant, like trying to emphasize that the previous well-intentioned and reasonable efforts by previous editors was really bad, like their work was s*****y or whatever. No need to be rude that way. Specific material and sources that in fact appear to me should be merged over (with editing) include:
  • that the AMA serves Alberta and the Northwest Territories, was founded in 1926 (maybe or maybe not mentioning it was started with 1400 members and that original dues were $6.50), with this source:[1]
  • that it is headquartered in Edmonton and has more than 950,000 members as of June 2018, with this source:[2]

References

  1. ^ Foran, Max (1982). Calgary, Canada's frontier metropolis : an illustrated history. Windsor Publications. p. 277. ISBN 0-89781-055-4. Archived from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  2. ^ AMA. "About the Alberta Motor Association". Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-12.
Brief stuff like that should go into a table row about AMA, perhaps, or into text in the needed section about CAAs subdivisions/affiliates, IMO.
To decide what to do here, Dmehus and I do not have to come to agreement about all that. "Merge" is okay by them and, I guess, is strongly preferred by me (because I think it is the right thing to do for many reasons). --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I'll remember that book name. I'll take a look and see what's useful, though I disagree it should be mentioned in a "table row" on the merged page about AMA. Stripping out the WP:Puffery and rewriting in a WP:NPOV, I can condense that article into about a paragraph (with citations, including those mentioned). I'm just saying, since a substantial rewrite is necessary, I'd favour redirect over merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where I disagree with you is the need to "credit" the authors. When you edit Wikipedia, you edit on the condition that your edits are uncredited—that is, pooled together with those of other editors, and then licensed fully to Wikimedia Foundation, who, in turn, license the collective content under CC-BY-SA (attribution is to Wikimedia/Wikipedia).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I also take issue with how you've characterized my redirect rationale. Similar to how I misunderstood your "obviously" statement, you've totally misread my reason for favouring redirect. It's not about saying their work was "sh**ty" as you suggest, but rather just eliminating the prose that was written rather hastily—like trying to be first create an article without regard to whether it meets WP:Notability or WP:NPOV. That's all.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong about the need to credit. I do not edit on condition that my contributions are uncredited, not at all. I absolutely do want to know that I and others can see, in my contribution history mostly (and only a little bit more by explicit credits in edit summaries (and continuing existence of my work in contribution history at a redirect), say, when my work has been merged elsewhere), all of my contributions. And it matters to me that anyone can figure out whether or not it was me that contributed some beautiful wording or some neat fact or insight or some mistake.
I don't care if coverage of the several branches of CAA is done in table of rows or in short paragraphs about each. But okay, you did not say their work was "s****y", not sure if I was implying that or mischaracterizing somewhat and if so I apologize. But I do think many editors, especially any citing essay wp:TNT (which you did not) and seeking deletion, do show reckless disregard for the previous editors, which rankles me a lot. But it does seem that you value/respect the previous editors' contributions less than I do, you are being very explicit about that.
I happen to have contributed around 15,000 new articles, almost all about historic sites and starting out as fairly short stubs, but I take pride in those contributions, esp. for the good sources linked with more info for interested readers, and for the inter-connections to other articles that I figure out to include, and for my decision-making about creating related articles, and more. Some in the past have been insulting to me about my contributions, and in general I feel they are ignorant about what was involved, and could not do what I have done, and/or they are malicious bullies or worse. But I do understand in general what you mean .... I myself do have a gripe myself with one or two specific editors who have created a ton of extremely short stubs with no value added, or negative value added, as if they just want to run up their article creation stats, where the stubs have same or less info than is already carried in well-constructed list-article tables. It is my estimation here, though, that the authors were well-intentioned and did quite a decent job (meaning the set of all previous editors who built up the article to its current state; i am not evaluating the original author's contribution). And I think you under-estimate their contribution, including by their having found and formatted the sources included and more, and their having made decisions about what to select or not, and so on. Maybe we can agree that we are just coming from different perspectives. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Yeah, and starting short stubs on historic sites like you have largely done apparently is entirely different. There's more research that can be done. Plus, the historic site doesn't hire anyone to do SEO work to promote their website. I think we have to be hyper-viligant with regard to companies and organizations for AfD, as well as biographies. But yeah, if it's just about a park, an auditorium, a historic site, or some sort of topical encyclopedic topic on say, Rope, then it's absolutely fine to have it start as a stub-class article and leave it there for as long as necessary. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, But yeah, some editors have been helpful, but it's mostly been clean-up, tagging categories, and the like. I don't care, personally, if an article I performed such trivial cleanup on is AfD'd. I was speaking mainly about the contributions of users "JaneySmith" and "Amatravel," who appear to have been editorially conflicted in their edits (especially the latter), and to the article's creator, who seems to have just wanted to run up article creation stats. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole delete voter has been blocked for sockpuppetry and the sole non-comment vote generated a lot of discussion, so an extra week is recommended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, LOL! For two people, we did get quite the deletion discussion going, didn't we? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alberta_Motor_Association&oldid=923235941"