Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmonton Social Planning Council


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton Social Planning Council

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very spammish article about a charity organistion which, although long-running, doesn't appear to have achieved much beyond regularly refocusing its goal, and one survery of renters The article's main contributor also appears to have a COI. Jac16888 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has multiple references, which should be enough to pass the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't say I'm strongly convinced of notability here; these things are really just the non-university version of a PIRG. I once worked for the equivalent organization in another city, so I know that the primary role of an SPC is to help other NPOs as a liaison and logistical support office (i.e. research support, helping groups connect with project funders, etc.) in their work, more than actually being the lead organization in their own right. Not that I'd say notability is out of the question here, but I'd like to see more sources than are currently present. In truth, I suspect that a single article about the general concept of social planning councils would probably pass the bar more easily than articles about specific SPCs. But maybe that's just me. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up to be less of an advert and with more and better references. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is much more a promotional advertisement than an objective, encyclopedic article. This comes more actoss as a PowerPoint presentation at an organization convention, as a sales pitch instead of a prospectus. The organization seems worthy of a NPOV article, but this isn't even close to one. B.Wind (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (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.