Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foster Care Council of Canada


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Foster Care Council of Canada

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

While this may sound like an official body, it is not; rather, it is a six-man show trying to change how Foster Care works. They have no Google News results and the first 30 pages of a regular search show nothing in the nature of a WP:RS. As such I don't think that this organization meets the inclusion requirements at WP:ORG or the verifiability requirements at WP:V.

The author, User:Afterfostercare, is Mr. John F. Dunn, who had his own article deleted three times for various reasons. While he has at all times been courteous and well-meaning, unfortunately his edits bear the hallmarks of a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, and judging from his recent message to me, he is trying to use Wikipedia as a directory or soapbox. I have taken his name off of the John Dunn dab page and I think most of the links to his website are gone at this stage.

Finally, although an A7 speedy may be appropriate here, I would appreciate taking the five days to go through the discussion and finally close the matter Stifle (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good call. WP:ORG says that non-commercial organisations are notable "if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization".  I too found no substantial secondary coverage at all after a careful search, apart from this news quote from Mr Dunn - everything else is primary, forum postings etc.  WP:ORG also suggests "longevity, size of membership, or major achievements" may be taken into account when deciding notability.  The first: OK; the second: Six at most?  Or just one active?; the third: none at all that we have citations for.  The author's comments in Stifle's diff clearly show his intention is to use Wikipedia as a directory.  So delete, but no problem with recreating when the organisation has solid secondary sources to confirm its notability.  Ka renjc 10:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not have enough reliable sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as it has 2500 hits in google which appear to be fairly specific. Article is OK quality too. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:48, 5 September 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.