Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudbury Community Foundation


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sudbury Community Foundation

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

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam; I'm taking it to AfD because the creator mentioned the similarity to Vancouver Foundation; yes, they're similar, except that the Vancouver Foundation has $800M loonies and Sudbury's has $1.5M. Notifying WP:Canada. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * comment I found this Sudbury Star article about it, which could be enough to establish notability.  There were this and this also in the search, but they only mention it in passing (so not usable for notability).--kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there's absolutely no rule about the size of bank account that a community foundation needs to possess before it can qualify for an article, so the fact that it has a smaller endowment than the Vancouver Foundation is irrelevant. The issue, as always, is sources, not how many loonies the organization controls. I'm neutral for the moment, but I will be revising that to a keep if suitable sources can be found before close. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. On the face of it, it appears to not meet WP:ORG, which suggests it is less likely to have enough reliable sources to create a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. For such a recent creation, I would have tagged it for notability requesting better sourcing for a while but as it's come here already, I'll go along with the delete suggestion unless significant sources are found. Double Blue  (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a matter of having better sources, I will make changes to the page using secondary sources. This is not a problem. I will attempt to do so in the next couple of days. ChrisKN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.184.64 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 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.