Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Toronto Youth Services

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Toronto Youth Services

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't verify notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The nominator's motives are irrelevant as long as it is a good-faith nomination, which it clearly is. But the question of notability is relevant. The organization may have enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. It has quite a few references at Google News Archive and I will attempt to add some of them to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF states that it is usually best to address conduct without mentioning motives. We can assume that the nominator acted in good faith in these nominations and add no conflict with SK#2. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of the article gets a large number of hits, 475, in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles. The articles range from 1975 to the present day. Unfortunately the search function is not so good at sorting by relevance, so it is tough to sift through and find the best to add to the article here. But I've added a few more to the ones that MelanieN added. I think it's also worth noting that this organization's studies are often cited by others, as shown in the Google Scholar link, above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 27 January 2013 (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.