Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Writers' Centre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Toronto Writers' Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. The few reasonable mentions on google news are about launching the Writers' Centre; nothing in these articles would establish notability. Consequently it is unlikely that notability can or will be established in the future. Note that the article has been tagged for re-write for 3 years with no progress. Ash (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article has barely been edited in 3 years, no proof of notability and it reads like an advertisement for the place -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontarop-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See references from this Google News Archive search. I added a reference from the Toronto Star, the largest-circulation newspaper in Toronto. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference is no surprise, it is mentioned as one of the launch articles in the nomination. This article does not establish notability. Wikipedia does not need an article for every shop, venue or product that gets brief mention in any newspaper where the article does not highlight some sort of reasonable significance.—Ash (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no way can know what will happen "in the future" per WP:CRYSTAL. In any case, there are two articles in the Toronto Star which go beyond the trivial. This may be limited and local coverage, but nevertheless this satisfies WP:V and WP:NOTE. Any other issues such as reading like an advertisement can be edited. freshacconci talktalk 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at these articles mentioned, it is true they exist (others as well during the launch period of April-June 2006, apparently a marketing campaign) but there is nothing in them that can be claimed to demonstrate notability as defined by WP:ORG. Again, these were mentioned in the nomination for the same reason. Taking your point about CRYSTAL, if the TWC were to become notable at some point in the future then you would have a good rationale for creating at that point, not before; that's the actual point made by CRYSTAL.—Ash (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except of course that my point is that the two articles show notability now. Are you going to respond to every "keep" during the course of this AFD? freshacconci talktalk 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just the comments that appear factually incorrect, I am not against keeping the article if TWC is notable. It would be helpful if you could highlight where in these articles notability as per the guidance of WP:ORG is established.—Ash (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, their own website list some press here that includes articles in Globe & Mail, National Post and Quill & Quire, all national publications. Local coverage includes 3 Toronto Star articles and one more in a smaller paper. I'm not sure what specifically needs to be "highlighted" beyond the fact that these are all articles and not press-releases or "works carrying merely trivial coverage" as indicated in WP:ORG, i.e. listings. Likewise, criteria for non-commercial organizations also state that "size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive". Size of membership is not necessarily applicable, but notability of members could be (remember, this is all open to interpretation and I encourage all editors to read WP:ORG and WP:CLUB to see this). In this light, items such as member Nino Ricci winning the Governor General's Awards is significant (i.e. that someone of that calibre would choose membership) and a number of other awards are listed. And yes, this is a press-release, but it shows that the City of Toronto and PEN Canada have partnered with Toronto Writers' Centre for City of Toronto/PEN Canada Writers in Exile Fellowship, which shows "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". All of this combined (and possibly individually) satisfy WP:ORG. freshacconci talktalk 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's a much better job of checking through the sources to judge notability than I did. Perhaps your summary would be useful kept on the talk page for any later discussion?—Ash (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at these articles mentioned, it is true they exist (others as well during the launch period of April-June 2006, apparently a marketing campaign) but there is nothing in them that can be claimed to demonstrate notability as defined by WP:ORG. Again, these were mentioned in the nomination for the same reason. Taking your point about CRYSTAL, if the TWC were to become notable at some point in the future then you would have a good rationale for creating at that point, not before; that's the actual point made by CRYSTAL.—Ash (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.