Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neill-Wycik

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neill-Wycik[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)

Article about a housing co-operative which is referenced entirely to primary sources, and has been flagged as such since 2009 without ever having a single reliable source added since. As always, every organization does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists -- it needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just technically verifiable to its own self-published website and CHFC meeting minutes and its own staff union, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:ORGCRIT, full of primary sources from the co-op associations. It could be retargeted to a listing in the Ontario Co-operative Association but caution must be given that it is WP:NOTDIRECTORY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyeopener is the student newspaper of Ryerson University, so it's not fully independent of Neill-Wycik (whose history is tied to Ryerson's) — and the Torontoist reference isn't about Neill-Wycik, but just glancingly namechecks Neill-Wycik's existence in the process of being about the general phenomenon of cooperative living. So they can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot bring a notability pass all by themselves as the strongest sources on offer. And besides those two, the only other new sources you've added at all are a routine listing in a comprehensive directory of every single tourist accommodation option that existed in the entire city of Toronto, and a routine directory listing of every time it happens to have gotten glancingly namechecked in House of Commons speeches while never even once being the subject of the speech — so those aren't sources that help to demonstrate notability either. Housing cooperatives don't get a free notability pass just because MPs have mentioned them in Parliament as examples of co-ops in the process of speaking about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for example. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyeopener is a separate corporation from Ryerson and frequently criticizes the university administration. In this context, I consider it independent and a reliable source. (Another newspaper, the Ryersonian, is a laboratory for the university's journalism program, and is owned by the university). Torontoist is a reliable online publication from by St. Joseph Media, known primarily as a magazine publisher. The House of Commons references seem to relate to Neill-Wycik being late in repaying a mortgage from what was then the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, about the same time that CMHC foreclosed on Rochdale College. A source need not be primarily about a topic to constitute in-depth information about the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Eyeopener's separateness or non-separateness from Ryerson as a corporation, nor the question of whether it criticizes the university administration or not, is in any way relevant to what I said. It's a student newspaper whose core purpose is to serve Ryerson's student population, not a general interest audience — so it is a source that can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been cleared by stronger sources, but it is not a source that provides clearance of GNG all by itself if it's the best source on display. This is true for the same reason that coverage in The Varsity is not going to magically get all of the University of Toronto's student union executive or the president of its LGBT student group over GNG just because they've gotten covered in The Varsity, and the same reason that an attempted recent article about Sunnybrook Mall didn't pass GNG just because there were a couple of citations to the South Bayview Bulldog, and the same reason that Inside Halton writing one piece about "Georgetown teen starts her own business selling cupcakes" is not going to get her over our notability standards for businesspeople all by itself. To start getting a topic over GNG, you have to show sources on the order of the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail and other sources of that class. University student newspapers or neighbourhood pennysavers do not confer a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources in the mix,

It's true that a a source does not have to be "primarily" about a topic to constitute in-depth information about the topic, but it does have to be more than a trivial namecheck of the topic's mere existence before it assists passage of GNG — so who publishes Torontoist is irrelevant, because the content being cited doesn't contain any substantive or notability-building information about Neill-Wycik beyond verifying that it exists.

Being mentioned in House of Commons debates is not a notability-maker in and of itself, either. It might count for something if there were news stories in the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail about whatever it was that got the co-op mentioned in the House of Commons — but even then, the notability is because of the news stories, not because of the mention per se. It counts for nothing if your source for the mention is the Hansard itself, because the Hansard is a primary source and not a notability-building media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing remarkable about this, and whatever comes from secondary sources, reliable or not, is trivial/run of the mill/etc. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial, in-depth coverage independent of subject. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 29 June 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.