Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Surrey Coalition

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Surrey Coalition

[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)

Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and even the one hit that actually comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about this party at all, but is here solely to verify a tangential fact about somebody else from a different party.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking anything to indicate meeting of notability requirements per WP:ORGCRIT. Coverage I found is local and does not help establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability and is covered by significant national media. For example: From The Globe and Mail: 1. From CBC News: 2, 3, 4. From Global News: 5. In short, it passes WP:ORG as having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources above which show notability. RedBlueGreen93 17:12, 15 March 2024 (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.