Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Child Care Co-operative (NSW)


 * 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   no consensus (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure)  NickGibson3900 Talk 08:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Community Child Care Co-operative (NSW)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional page for local co-op. All non-press release references are about general topics that only mention the organization  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked on my talk p. for details: Refs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are about the general funding of child care in NSW. (similarly 1 in all probability,, tho I can;t see it) Ref 6, 9, and 10  sre  general problems. The Coop wrote no. 7, 12, 13, and 15.  8 is the bio of the director. Its reliable as a bio, but doesn't show notability.  And the bio of list of staff members is not of encyclopedic interest. .  DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -, the organisation is a peak body representing and advocating for the interests of community child care centre's in NSW (not exactly what I would refer to as a jurisdiction, being the largest state in Australia). The lack of WP:RS independent from the subject does to seem to be a bit of a problem. AlanS (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are quotes in references 2,4,5 and 6 from the co-operative which are advocacy of the sector. Googling them also turns up a fair amount of submissions from them to various government inquiries . Not very usable in terms of the article but the amount of them does demonstrate their activity in the sector as a peak-body NGO. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alan, is it a "peak body" in the sense of being an advisory body, or a regulatory role, or a supervisory administrative role? For a State agency, we normally do accept as notable the major first-order departments of government; this is at most a sub-department, and for these our practice seems to vary.  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a department of government or sub-department at all. It is a membership based not for profit non governmental organisation (members in this context would be non governmental child care centres) in which members would pay a yearly fee. The organisation then advocates for the sector as a whole and engages in representation for members where required. These sort of organsations tend to spend more of their time advocating (submissions to senate inquiries, engaging the media to try and shape public attitudes, etc.) than representing. In essence it is a pooling of resources across the community child care sector so that individual centres can get on with their business leaving the advocating for the interests of the sector to the peak body. Peak bodies tend to be spokespersons in the media any time changes in government policy will have an impact on their members. AlanS (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets GNG as a nonprofit organization, has a large membership and plays a significant role in the area of influence.  Montanabw (talk)  00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Does GNG indicate that non-profit organizations are all inherintly notably? Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. This isn't an all or nothing question. The sourcing added to this article indicates that it meets notability as far as being a large non-profit advocacy organization that is adequately notable.  Montanabw (talk)  02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyright infringement of http://ccccnsw.org.au/about-us/our-programs-and-services Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So we need to fix the copyright issues. That's simple enough.   Montanabw (talk)  22:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Follow up:  Someone should run a checker on what's in there not, there are a lot of sources, I tweaked some of the initial sections, seems a good copyediting run should fix anything in too much trouble.   Montanabw (talk)  02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:52, 9 September 2014 (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.