Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah's Gate


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Deborah's Gate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable organization/place per WP:ORG. Strictly local and minor coverage. Kelly hi! 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Source coverage is trivial mentions about other Salvation Army campaigns and organizations which happen to fund this shelter. Not independently notable. No redirect option per WP:XY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Creator is a known Salvationist, doing advocacy on Wikipedia. Don't need a Wiki article on every property the group owns. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As an atheist, I'm not a fan of the Salvation Army, but I don't just see local coverage here and I see a problem with the discussion. It seems as if the votes on this AfD are biased, because it shouldn't matter if the person is interested in the Salvation Army or not--you may as well tell me not to write about atheists or women because I'm both of those. Also, I disagree with the idea that local coverage negates notability: especially if the city is as large as Vancouver. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No, the coverage is purely local, and it's not very in-depth. Sources like this don't help either, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (thanks) I've visited here, its just a homeless shelter. Good but not notable. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just not seeing enough to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. There was a press release put out by the Canadian government about providing some funds to the organization and a few major outlets picked it up, but it's still just a press release. I have to say, though, I wonder if there's a way to combine all of these locally/marginally notable related topics into something bigger without relying on synthesis (something like "human trafficking activism in Canada"? Meh.). PS: Likely an accident, but you !voted twice above . &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a random minor organisation created as a part of a concerted advocacy push; coverage is very trivial and to accept it as sufficient would extend guidelines in this area way beyond what they have traditionally been. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:25, 14 November 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.