Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COA Ontario


 * 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. The reasons given for deletion are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the reasons given by the one editor arguing "keep" are not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I now also see that this was a re-creation of an article deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Condo Owners Association, and so it could have been speedily deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

COA Ontario

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Charity article which has been tagged with primarysources, advert, and inappropriate tone tags. No significant work done to the article for over nine months. Article not passed review several times. Would also like to included aassociated owner Linda Pinizzotto who outwith links to articles has slim sources. scope_creep (talk 03:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:ORG. No depth of coverage.  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom and above. Additionally I would like to tack on Condo Owners Association (Ontario) to this AFD since it is a redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * comment: if an article is deleted, the redirects to it are normally deleted also. It doesn't need to be specifically nominated.  DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete.- Fails ORG and it little more than a press release. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question @User:Mrfrobinson @Magnolia677, @Niteshift36, @scope_creep: The only policy-based deletion criteria all of you provide is Notability (organizations and companies)  which says: . Would you kindly tell us how you determined that no sources have been published? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick google search yielded one passing mention of the COA in The Toronto Star. How about you provide some sources instead of wikilawyering? Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Tens of millions of people who live in the United States and Canada live in condominiums (or stratas as they are known in British Columbia.) Condos are owned by people who want to be homeowners but cannot afford or do not want to be bothered by having to maintain a house. and are especially popular with childless adults. There is an area of law that deals with condo ownership in every state and every province. This area includes legislation, case law and l law firms which exclusively deal with condo law. There are thousands of property  management firms hired by condo owners to manage the common elements of their condominium. Condo-ownership is the fastest growing form of ownership today, by far.


 * Yet, in Wikipedia which is striving to be “the sum of all knowledge”, there is scant information about condos. The  few  articles that do exist in Category:condominium are  mostly marginal, some badly written, others have  questionable sources.


 * If you believe in Wikipedia why not try to correct this state of affairs by adding information, instead of spending your time  attempting to remove whatever little others have tried to add in the past? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that tens of millions of people live in condos has no bearing on whether one particular condo-related organization has enough reliable source coverage to qualify for an encyclopedia article about it. Wikipedia does not strive to be "the sum of all knowledge", nor to be a comprehensive directory of every single thing that has ever existed at all — verifiability in reliable sources, not "gets a no-sourcing freebie because they do important work", is the be-all and end-all of whether an organization gets an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:ORG. No depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; relies entirely on primary sources with no discernible evidence of reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2015 (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.