Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Edmonton Business Association


 * 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 -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

South Edmonton Business Association

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

Declined PROD; prod tag deleted without edits to the article, but the user left the note "decline: reliable sources mentioning the subject are enough indication of importance/significance" on their talk page. I disagree - the sources only mention the SEBA in passing, which doesn't add up to "significant coverage".

The original reason in the PROD tag was: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree completely - Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" is rather subjective. There is reference by major news stations as well as the City of Edmonton.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkonetwo (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" - as I said above, the sources only mention SEBA in passing, and in my view, that doesn't amount to "significant" coverage.  Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, only has 48 Google hits, none of which are significant. I tried db-club and prodding, sadly these did not work. It is important to keep in mind that having a Wikipedia page will do absolutely nothing to promote an entity like the South Edmonton Business Association nor the businesses in South Edmonton, since click-through to such pages is practically non-existent. People Googling South Edmonton Business Association obviously already know what they are looking for. If the page creator wishes to drive business towards the SEBA, or towards South Edmonton, more traditional advertising methods are far superior. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not dispute your point that having a page on Wikipedia will be virtually worthless from an advertising perspective but you are missing my intentions entirely. As an online encyclopedia I was under the impression that it was a comprehensive database of noteworthy information. The association, which dates back to 1912 and has been instrumental to South Edmonton's current economic and political landscape, apparently doesn't have a "significant" amount of coverage. It is a non-profit association that has been involved deeply in Edmonton's history over the past 100 years and it is very disappointing to see a few people who likely know nothing about Edmonton try to destroy an entry based on what they have "googled". I'm not sure if there is some sort of points system on Wikipedia where people are rewarded for tearing down someone else's work (albeit a small entry) but I suspect that the people who do this are void of actually ever having built anything themselves. Unless of course they include their Wikipedia page as something they've built. BRAVO. Jimtraxx (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this personally - this is not about tearing down something that someone has built, and it certainly isn't about earning reward points. Wikipedia is not a database, as you say, but an encyclopedia.  Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  That burden has not been met in the article in question.  If you have such sources, I suggest that you add them to the article.  I also suggest that you review Wikipedia's guidelines about assuming good faith and ownership of articles.  Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia says that it is NOT a directory. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say DIRECTORY? It says in plain font "a comprehensive database of noteworthy information". Clearly there are more intelligent people on here than me, for they have mastered the art of deciphering code. (198.166.28.213 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Don't question the infinite wisdom of someone hiding behind a keyboard. (ChristopherPark (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh please, you act like we're killing the organization, not removing some text from Wikipedia that nobody even read, as can be seen here. Joey the Mango (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (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.