Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver


 * 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. North America1000 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm sure it's frustrating but using AfD to bump inherently notable articles into getting better sourcing isn't the purpose of AfD is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * why is it inherently notable? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Erm,, I'm not sure what to make of that. It makes assumptions that are simply untrue about my reasons for nominating - please stick to commenting on the notability of the article. Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reading "It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved." maybe I misread "doesn't have the coverage", since when I clicked on sources the coverage was too plentiful if anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my nomination says my plan is 'to bump inherently notablr articles into getting better sourcing' by taking them to AfD. I don't thin it's notable, I respect your right to disagree, but please don't just make unsubstantiated attacks. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:ORG . No inherent notability . Gnews shows routine announcements such as holding events or local coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and GBooks? none of these book sources?. What about p.74 of Nationalism from the Margins: Italians in Alberta and British Columbia By Patricia K. Wood? To me p.74 on its own would provide notability for this building and association. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * most of the gbooks mentions are 1 line mentions. The Wood book you mention is a one paragraph mention . WP:SIGCOV requires detailed coverage. I stand by my delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Ummm, I was going to talk about WP:SIGCOV, but I note that the point is taken, BTW, I have added the references to the article. Replying to the point raised by LibStar, there are no absolute thresholds for coverage. If multiple, independent and reliable sources mention the subject of the article, even then the subject is notable, and yes, the subject is covered in multiple books available on Google Books. Maybe, the content available via reliable sources is not sufficient to make this an A Class article, but that is OK. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are going to stay as stubs for a long time. But, coming back to the main point, the subject of the article has received significant independent coverage to be Notable. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The article has not demonstrated encyclopedic notability, with sourcing that is very weak and largely either local in nature or not independent of the subject.  But of more basic concern, I'm having a tough time even seeing a credible claim of significance.  What are we told about the Centre in the introduction?  We are told that it exists, it has an address and it has a bar.  And some writers once met there.  And it has a sculpture by the gate.  If these are truly the most significant things that can be said, then this organization has no encyclopedic notability.  And so, I think 'delete' is the best option here.  Conceivably, one could redirect it to Little Italy, Vancouver, but that article doesn't mention the Centre at all and I don't see how the material here could be merged into that article without creating an undue-weight problem.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 19:21, 27 August 2017 (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.