Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories

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. Delete all Courcelles 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [1]. and the article says the organisation is dormant. so I don't see the point of this article unless significant history can be found. also nominating:

Corporation of Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of New Brunswick
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Saskatchewan
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Nova Scotia
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Manitoba
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta
Nunavut Interpreter/Translator Society
Society of Interpreters and Translators of Yukon
Society of Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia

however not nominating Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec as this has marginal notability. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories as non-notable. Google finds no news sources, only one scholarly work and five books (which may be false-positives; they are not preview-able), and only 24 web hits for the group. I have not checked the others, but if there are no more sources than this available, they should be deleted, too. Cnilep (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ontario, weak keep Alberta and Saskatchewan, delete the rest. Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario actually has several mentions in Google news archives; Alberta and Saskatchewan are mentioned in books or scholarly articles (though perhaps only in passing). Cnilep (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ontario one does not get any indepth coverage in gnews [2]. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang me for not properly noting those sources when I found them; now I can't re-locate them. There is, however, mention of ATI Ontario and Societe de traducters du Quebec here: Repa (2010) "Training and certification of court interpreters...." This is probably not sufficient to establish notability, but is a step in that direction. Cnilep (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of reliable sources to demonstrate notability, delete all. These are all holdovers from 2004, a time when Wikipedia's inclusion rules were being made up as we went along: sourcing requirements weren't so tight and the distinction between notability and mere existence wasn't so well defined. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In light of my inability to locate reliable sources, I have no objection to Bearcat's rationale. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2010 (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.