Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Columbia Public School Employers' Association


 * 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.  BLACK KITE  00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia Public School Employers' Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as a non-notable organisation. The article is of poor quality, and contains excessively lengthy lists of minutiae from its history. Only sources are from the organisation's own website Mayalld (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC) *Speedy Delete - as a copyvio from the BCSPEA website. I fail to see how copying the entire article from the web site constitutes an allowed use. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. No assertion of notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the information does not use the org's website as an information source, but rather as a literal cut'n'paste. WP does have permission for it (see talk page). That explains why the article is in such non-encyc form and in need of massive rewriting for tone. DMacks (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and stub/cleanup -- notable labor negotiating body representing employees. Several usable references found with Google News' archive search. -- A. B. (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup yes, deletion no. Google check confirms that there is scope for good article. --Soman (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a copyvio. If this was a copy and paste as it appears to be, then this article needs to be deleted and a new one created from other sources assuming notability is established. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a copy, but very definitely not a copyvio because it's an explicitly allowed use. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - oops. Missed the OTRS ticket in the talk.  Keep as a labour union representing a significant work force.  But having the whole thing copied from their web site isn't conducive to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article can be improved. The article is acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the topic seems notable and covered by reliable sources, even if the article needs some work.--Aldux (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.