Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Film Centre

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Film Centre[edit]

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

Terribly promotional article by an obvious COI editor, which has been here in this condition (without references to establish notability) for far too long. This is basically the text of an organizational website. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion — as discouraged as it is, a COI article's keepability or deletability comes down not to the COI itself, but to whether or not the COI issues are repairable with a scrub job for neutrality and sourceability. This is a very notable organization, however — even if it presents its claim to notability in an advertorialized way that could stand to be rephrased more neutrally than it is, it fundamentally is every bit as central to the Canadian film and television industries as it claims, and the reliable source referencing to repair it with does exist out there in the real world. So it's definitely a candidate for badly needed cleanup, but its problems are not grounds for deletion per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:TNT / WP:PROMO. Unsourced promotional 'cruft, starting with "a charitable organization whose mission is to invest in and inspire the next generation of world-class Canadian content creators and entrepreneurs in the screen-based entertainment industry"! There's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article based on RS (if indeed the subject is notable), but Wikipedia is not a place to house an org's funding appeals. In the present form, the article is G11 eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already in the process of cleaning up the promotionalism and adding proper sources, so there's no need for a WP:TNT here. It's not a question of if the subject is notable. It is notable, and the article just wasn't doing a very good job of showing and sourcing that properly — but cleanup is already underway. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent article improvements by Bearcat. The section Canadian_Film_Centre#Training_and_advancement is still unsourced and promotional in nature, however. I suggest it be removed unless it can be sourced properly. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, and with Bearcat's improvements, also now properly sourced. Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG and is no longer promotional. Ralbegen (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable - improved references by Bearcat.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (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.