Add links
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Learning Code

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

Ladies Learning Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially all of the sources are their own press releases, and the content of the article reads as if this too is a press release. The article is 5 years out of date--I made a search for additional and especially current sources and found nothing except press releases and notices of meeting--the only possibly usable one was [1] from the Toronto Sun, but it too is a collection of statements from supporters.

If there were to be an article, it would make more sense for it to be on the overall organization,, Canada Learning Code--some of the statistics here are from that, and some from this section, and some from related allied sections.

I am always conflicted when I list for deletion articles on excellent projects such as this -- they generally deserve to become notable , and I do share the feeling that perhaps an appropriate part of our role is to help them. But it isn't: we're not a directory, not even a directory of everything good that is in some way related to our own initiatives. I tend to deal with it by letting pass the ones that are written as real articles, rather than collections of buzzwords, and focussing on the ones like this where every major contributor is a single purpose account. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I wouldn't consider the Toronto Sun terribly reliable. I have one story on the CBC [2] about the group, one brief mention in the Toronto Star [3], but this is a bit more about the lady that founded it [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could also redirect to Canada Learning Code, but that article doesn't seem to exist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Seems like a worthwhile organization but unfortunately the coverage that exists doesn't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV bar; the sources above seem maybe just barely below it. This also goes for Canada Learning Code, couldn't find non-routine coverage of that either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to have the minimum notability and media coverage for inclusion into Wikipedia. However, better citations still needed. Assirian cat (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources are mainly press releases which lack sufficent independence from the subject. None of the sources rise to standards that we apply to organizations at WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2022 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ladies_Learning_Code