Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guelph Chamber of Commerce

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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Chamber of Commerce[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)

Created by now-blocked WP:SPA User:Guelphchamber, used as WP:OSE excuse by AfC candidates, relies solely on information from the organizations website (fixable), and there are definite doubts about its notability per WP:NORG. At the very least, hopefully this discussion can clarify notability around Chambers of Commerce in smaller cities, states and provinces. Bkissin (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - (to Guelph) nom beat me to it, an OSE example that immediately warranted nomination for deletion. I also don't think that notability is established per NORG. I don't think any actual specific consideration is needed - each of them has to pass NORG, and some will and some won't. While it's an unlikely search target, it's possible (there is some coverage within the Guelph article) and it retains the history and is no great loss. Worth watchlisting in case the SPA comes back. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and/or redirect). As established many times in other AFD discussions, the problem with chambers of commerce is that they exist in virtually every city and do basically the same things everywhere, so they don't all get an "inherent" notability freebie just because their own self-published website offers technical verification that they exist — just like all other organizations, chambers of commerce still have to meet the notability test of having enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is another page, similar to Udaipur Chamber of Commerce, lacks WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's well-established that CoC's are run of the mill and to be notable must be proven to be notable by significant coverage. I don't see how the consensus would change soon. This is a relatively small city, not a major tourist or convention draw like Toronto or Niagara Falls. Bearian (talk)

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.