Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer (ONCAT)

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. Already been relisted 3 times; lack of participation in discussion. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 19:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer (ONCAT)

[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)

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. Six of the ten footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- for example, funding a research paper is not a notability claim if your source for it is the research paper itself, rather than journalism or analysis being done about the research paper to establish its significance -- and three more are just glancing namechecks of its existence in books that contain no significant or substantive content about it. There's only one source here that's actually both reliable and contains an actual full paragraph of content about the organization -- but one decent source is not enough all by itself if all nine other footnotes are non-notability-supporting junk. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coverage of this organisation is limited to primary sources and passing mentions, even a paragraph is not significant coverage. Fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG - seems to get a lot of media coverage one, two. three. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the first of the three sources seems to be a press release, while the other two are passing mentions. Not anything that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second seemed to have enough coverage. First is indeed a press release - I missed that. Lots more references though - four - Canadian Journal of Higher Education, five - North Bay Nugget - which is also available here, six - Toronto Star, seven - Niagara Falls Review, eight - Guelph Mercury nine - Macleans 1996. I could see a case of merge to Ministry of Colleges and Universities - but I don't see how delete (User:Devonian Wombat) would be the best action, as there are more than enough reliable secondary sources that describe it's function. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 23 June 2020 (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.