Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Land Trust Alliance

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. TNT case and I'd suggest that any recreation sticks closely to any sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Land Trust Alliance

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

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & a before search links me to mostly user generated sources obviously not independent of the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope I have included enough links now to additional sources. I edit on Wiki occasionally - and noticed land conservation in Canada has very little presence on Wiki. Most land conservation is happening with the support of the Canadian & provincial governments, through Charities/NGOs who participate in the government program. Nature Conservancy of Canada is the largest and Ducks Unlimited is pretty big. You've also got the three provincial umbrella land trusts, with OLTA being probably the largest. Land conservation is by its nature "local" - you can't conserve land outside your geographic boundaries. But through OLTA, UNESCO reserves are being conserved (Niagara Escarpment), and Canada's biodiversity treaty commitments being met. I created the thumbnail page first and invited others to add content. No one else did so - so I have supplemented and linked to the member groups. I would like to ensure the Project Drawdown page links to OLTA or OLTA members as a Land Sink. Critical to the fight against Climate Change. If Wiki wants to inform readers about wilderness conservation in Canada, I don't think it can do so without pages for the land trusts and umbrella organizations. SabaBPC (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - it seems somewhat absurd to me that this page is being considered for deletion - still. When I first created the page, I included just a thumbnail. Since then, I have added news and other links demonstrating this is an important conservation organization in Canada. Perhaps the original lister can review the revisions and reconsider the non-notability tag. thanks. SabaBPC (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding press releases or mere mentions does not constitute RS. We need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization to substantiate or prove their notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added a couple of more. OLTA is a quasi-government organization. It distributes federal and provincial conservation funds. Even without news coverage, the organization is part of Canada's conservation apparatus - and as the umbrella organization of many notable organizations, cannot not be notable. Please note that in 2010, its employees were categorized as provincial employees here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2010-organizations-no-salaries-disclose. Here is another link someone could work in: https://www.ontario.ca/page/state-ontarios-protected-areas-report SabaBPC (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is very promotional. --Devoke water 11:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to clean it up a bit, but it is indeed so promotional that it probably requires WP:TNT. There is evidence of COI on behalf of the article creator.--- Possibly (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search shows what looks like a bare minimum of reliable media sources. I would support a rewrite of the article. Julius177 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius177, what you may be referencing is bare notability which isn’t one & the same as being notable per standards set at WP:NCORP or WP:NGO, if there aren’t in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, then it shouldn’t be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the article, I have no conflict. I have no personal relationship with OLTA. I noticed that Wiki has almost no information about land conservation in Canada. To fix this, wiki needs to have information about the 2 treaties mentioned, information about ECAN, then the 3 regional conservation umbrella organizations, then the main land trusts like Nature Conservancy Canada and Ducks Unlimited. Canada and Ontario give conservation grants through OLTA. If it's a quasi-government institution - a public institution - I can't see why it's not notable. I would really appreciate revisions rather than removing content from wiki, which is necessary to educate the public. SabaBPC (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SabaBPC, as long as the articles you intend to create satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion then you should have no cause to worry but if not they may be deleted. Remember that Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of any and all articles. Perhaps try out the WP:AFC method to submitting articles you may want to create in future? That way you are certain the article would most likely be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021

@Celestina007, thank you - but I do worry because I suppose I quibble a bit with the guidelines. The phrase "significant coverage", if taken to the extreme, means that popular topics get on wiki, and important topics may not. I became a wiki editor around the time I met Donna Strickland and learned that she failed to get a wiki page - as wiki editors did not believe she was important/notable. So I routinely choose important institutions and individuals (mostly women) who may not be popular. Botany, for example, is not as popular as zoology. It does not sell newspapers - and a page I made about a botanist was nominated for deletion - it was hard to push back. So too with land conservation. Coverage tends to be from within. It isn't that I want to be a wiki editor for the sake of being an editor. I'm trying to make sure important topics are covered - specifically related to climate change - and also to ensure the achievements of women and marginalized groups are featured.

On this particular topic, the questioning of OLTA's notability confuses me because OLTA is basically part of the Ontario government. It's how Ontario is doing land conservation. So even if no one were writing about OLTA in the news, it should be here. I note the guidelines re: government organizations is scant. There appears to be a lack of consensus. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong page? SabaBPC (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think enough exists for a Land conservation in Ontario article, but not one on this organization in particular. Most of the sources are discussing the organization in discussions of larger conservation issues. I feel for these types of organizations because by their nature for the most part the coverage will be "Organization X received a grant to do Y" rather than actual coverage of the organization itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 16 March 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.