Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Living Ontario (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Living Ontario

Delete for non-notability. References to this organization is dubious at best, and this article was created as a blatant ad by the organization (whose account here, unimaginatively named communitylivingontario, was recently banned as a promotional username). The last discussion was also not throughly discussed, with only three users voting (one of whom withdrew their comments later). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep The one comment that was removed was TPH's and it was the speedy delete that he took back and changed it to a keep. I think that considering the last AfD finished August 3rd, this is too early to consider another AfD unless the article has changed drastically. If that's the case then a revert would be in order... not an AfD. --Pmedema (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability. I'm sure its activities and aims are noble, but even the national organization doesn't have an article, why should the provincial one? PK T 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because the national organization does not have an article does not remove notability from the provincial. Plenty of google hits and the organization issues civic awards that are considered distinguished.--Pmedema (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, neither is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. PK T 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleNews, GoogleBooks, GoogleScholar, GoogleWeb and that's only on this provincial body, not including the many local community Community Living organisations falling under it[1]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has lots of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important, well-known organisation. Clean-up tags may be appropriate but deletion, I feel, is not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the noob who tried to fix up this article, I got it from a google search and it was so poor I could not believe it. It is a very notable organization that has been credited as a leader in closing down Ontario's major institutions for people with intellectual disabilities. The national organization is actually much smaller than Community Living Ontario, so don't be confused that the province doesn't deserve and entry. I thought the version I put together was pretty good, I didn't realize I shouldn't have picked a user name that was so close to the topic name, an honest error, I was just trying to fix up the entry. Inclusionforeveryone (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't speak to "important" but if it was "well-known" one would expect some reliable sources. As it is, the absence of any reliable sources should have made this a speedy delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article lists multiple sources, with non-trivial mentions of this organization. There's enough there to establish a presumption of notability as per the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The multiple sources all one magazine called "Community Action" which appears to be some kind of trade publication (plus a press release). This does not establish notability, as per the WP:GNG
Update – I found more sources by searching with the organization's former name, Ontario Association for Community Living. I've added just a few of them (there are many more newspaper articles mention the organization), including a book that calls them "one of the most influential advocacy groups in Canada" for people with disabilities. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment here's what the article has now. Four references that can't be assessed from canadian newspapers because no links are provided. All I can say with certainty about those citations is that the name of this group is not mentioned in the headline. After the four newspaper refs, there's a profile of a man on something called simcoe.com that doesn't mention this organization; the rest are either from the aformentioned trade rag "community living" or a CBC article about a fire at a building this group owned. None of this, wholly or collectively, establishes notability or makes for strong, reliable sources.

Get some live links to newspaper articles that focus on this group's activities and i might change my view. Not close to that yet, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply – "Get some live links"? Sorry, but these news articles are not available online. I've read them, and I can report to you that there are several that discuss the group's activities (even if the article does not exclusively focus on the group), and several more that quote spokespeople from the organization when political issues related to people with disabilities are in the news. There is no requirement that Wikipedia articles use sources that are available on the Internet. Nonetheless, I can offer this link to the book I've quoted, if that's helpful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment yes, really. An article was started as advertising for and by this organization without good sources. Now sources are said to be found, in articles whose headlines don't mention this group and that can not be independently evaluated. I did read the book citation. Chupik does in fact make that assertion about the "ontario association for community living." I understand the name has changed. Does that name change imply that the org is no longer influential, or important? Not clear to me. But either way, I'm not sure if an academic paper (that book after all is just a binding of a bunch of related academic papers) that asserts notability for a previous iteration of this group, would be sufficient for that previous iteration even under WP:GNG. At any rate, that's my take. I'll let others chime in or not.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think I've got this covered now as far as neutral and notable sources, I've referenced everything from the Toronto Star to the Government of Ontario Hansard - all available on the internet. I'm sorry if I messed up some of the formatting, I am new to this, my contribution at this time is to rid this entry of the deletion tag which is ridiculous, as this is one of the biggest and most significant charitable organizations in all of Canada. And no, I don't work for them. I just know their work, my passion for the organization is much like how you would feel about a children's hospital that cured your child's cancer.Inclusionforeveryone (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2008 (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.