Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calgary Health Trust


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. No current delete votes and nominator withdrew in statement below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Calgary Health Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be wholly unnotable, with next to no reliable sources discussing the trust, as well as a before search turning up nothing of relevance for sourcing. Seems to be heavily contributed to by editors with conflicts of interest. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - perhaps a before search should include Proquest or newspapers.com. Here's some good sources - and the last two should have in Google:, three, - okay, this one's a bit of a puff piece, but who can resist a headline. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did include a newspaper search and found nothing of relevance, but I can do a more thorough search when I wake back up. I unfortunately can't access either ProQuest article you linked, and it seems you linked the same thing for numbers three and four. The Calgary Herald source is useless for notability as it was paid for by the trust—this is stated both at the top and bottom of the article. Perryprog (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, ! Thanks, I fixed the link for four! And I missed the paid bit - and I wasn't particularly serious about that one. There's other Calgary Herald articles - in particular this one - . You should be able to get access to Proquest through the Wikipedia Library. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh, awesome, I totally forgot Wikipedia Library included ProQuest. This document seems to be moderately okay although I don't think it's really significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Link four is probably the best here so far (I'm not sure why my searches didn't turn up any Calgary Herald stuff?), but it's also on its own. This still isn't close to being notable enough, as far as I can tell. (Even if you include the survey ProQuest article, it's still all from the Calgary Herald which isn't too desirable either.) Perryprog (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep Weak Delete Since this is an organization, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. Only one of the references posted by Nfitz above appears to meet the criteria for establishing notability. This reference starts out with a comment from the CEO but the rest of the article is in-depth and does not appear to be simple company boilerplate description. But the other references fail WP:NCORP in some form - either a simply business listing or no-indepth information on the company. Happy to revisit if someone turns up another reference but I'm unable to see anything other than announcements and passing mentions.  HighKing++ 20:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appears to be some coverage in this book, but I don't read French, so I can't comment on whether it supports notability in relation WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Starting on page 158, there is a profile of a campaign run by the topic company called P.A.R.T.Y. (Prevent Alcohol and Risk-related Trauma in Youth) and although it does not have a lot of information about the topic company per se, in my opinion it just about squeaks it. I've changed my !vote accordingly.  HighKing++ 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, awesome! I think that's enough for me as well; I'm definitely swayed by your argument as well, HighKing. Perryprog (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Weak) keep/withdraw: thanks to both HighKing's and 4meter4's votes and comments, I'm convinced enough that the corporation is notable enough . Perryprog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2021 (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.