Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greening Greater Toronto

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 redirect to Environmental issues in Toronto. Tone 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greening Greater Toronto[edit]

[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)

Apparently non-notable initiative. As far as I can tell, it released one report in 2008 and did very little else. The report did get some coverage in the Toronto Star ([1], [2]) and CityNews ([3]). By article count alone, you might think that passes WP:THREE. But I just have a hard time believing that a single report released 12 years ago with no apparent long-term impact is an encyclopedic topic. Would be nice to get some clarity on this one way or another, since it's been tagged for notability for over 11 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to environmental issues in Toronto. This initiative probably should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to environmental issues in Toronto. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging sounds like a great idea! I would suggest that the eventual merger (I'd do it myself, if consensus is to merge) be selective—there's a lot of peacocks, weasels, and puffery hanging out in this article at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2020 (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.