Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Federation of Metro Tenants&

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This seems to be a non-notable group, and the article, and the attending links, seem to be self-promotional, rather than educational, in direct conflict with Wikipedia's goals. Abebenjoe (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a number of sources. I got 360 hits on Google News, so I think notability is easily established here. Silver  seren C 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly written, external link section seems to be a bunch of random links, with nothing in the body of the article to make them meaningful. The question of notability still exists.Abebenjoe (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not in the body of the article because I didn't feel like taking the time to put them in as references. If you feel they should be, see WP:SOFIXIT. You have not stated at all how or even if the sources don't establish notability. Silver  seren C 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the citations are not properly integrated into the body of the article, and the fact that article is poorly written, means it is non-notable. If you strongly feel it should stay, start fixing up the article yourself.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   Eastmain (talk • contribs)  03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a long-established organization that has promoted tenant rights in the Toronto area for many years. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a notable group. They have rather minor membership and have not been actively involved in any major legislation or any successful movements for change. The links they posts are all self-promotional to sell memberships and the top of their website is trying to sell car rentals and tenant insurance. Their postings has been done by "10 Ants" and one other person without a login identity and they have been involved in no other postings so their only interest seems to be in making money off of Wikipedia. tenant (talk ) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything that you just said has nothing to do with its notability. The descriptions in reliable, secondary sources like those newspapers are most definitely not self-promotional. What their website is for doesn't matter at all and who made the article doesn't matter at all. If you believe that the article is not NPOV, then you should fix it, but we're here to discuss the notability of the subject and it's usage in reliable, secondary sources. Silver  seren C 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep A search of Toronto newspapers indicates that this group has generated a number of news articles over the years so the group is notable. See, for example The Toronto Star's archiveFunwheel (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2010 (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.