Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.

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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic and thus doesn't count toward GNG at all.
And while the three remaining footnotes are proper media coverage, they still aren't building a particular strong case for inclusion: they're all just going "Newspaper, Date" without providing the title of any specific content in that newspaper on that date, and two of them are from the local daily newspaper and thus aren't counting for anything toward the ORGDEPTH test.
So there's only one footnote here ("National" Post 1967, which is really the Financial Post since the National Post didn't exist under that name until the 1990s) that's starting to build a proper case for notability, but just one hit of extralocal coverage isn't enough to get this over ORGDEPTH all by itself.
This just doesn't state anything about the co-op that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Canadian media.[1], [2], [3]. Last one's probably the best. That and the Financial Post article should be enough for notability; it was one of the first such residences in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the Financial Post article [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I'm struggling to see how after reading the 1967 Financial Post article, that User:Bearcat nominated this. That's very in-depth coverage 55-years ago, and easy enough to find more recent articles, as has been done above. Perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is absolutely clear and unequivocal that passage of it requires a lot more than just one article. So there's no conflict that should be difficult to understand: Bearcat nominated this because one acceptable source is not enough all by itself. The only thing one source precludes is speedy deletion; one source is not even close to enough to immunize an article against an AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me User:Bearcat that you couldn't find a single second article in your BEFORE. The AFD process is clear and unequivocal that you don't AFD articles just because they are poorly referenced, if the referencing can be easily improved. As the referencing has now been improved as well, I'm sure even you can agree that this nomination should be immediately withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are now more news articles added to the article. These include the Montreal Gazette, CTV News, and CBC News. With the passage of time, more can be added to the article. Thanks also for not deleting this article until I can get my hands on a copy of Leslie Cole's 2008 academic volume, Under Construction: a history of co-operative housing in Canada. Thank you. (Dw861) — Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 August 2024 (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.