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. (X! · talk)  · @709  ·  16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onetoronto.ca[edit]

Onetoronto.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable group/website/organization started just a week ago that appears to be promotion by a COI editor. Despite assertions of notability, I was unable to find evidence that this passes WP:N. This also appears to be a one-event thing, in violation of Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS Triplestop x3 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered for this group last week. Has been covered over 30 times in the Toronto star, Toronto Sun, Globe and mail, CityTV, Globabl News, CP24 News and the CBC. Has involved over 250 volunteers throughout the city. Not sure why anyone thinks this isn't legitamit, contact any of the City of Toronto Ministers, Councillor and MPPs that have been involved -camerocw — camerocw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just reviewed the reasons for why an article can be deleted, if you look at this article and compare you will clearly see it fits none. Not sure why triplestop wants it deleted, legit organization, if he was from Toronto he would have seen the hordes of volunteers out and seen them and their media coverage. check thier page for a list of articles published on them -Camerocw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerocw (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Toronto is in the middle of a garbage strike. It's harldy a count against this article that it was created a week ago. Hairhorn (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not news. Triplestop x3 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not news, a group that was created in response to a current issue, a group that has been helping a lot of people Camerocw (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw—Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerocw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree here, this isn't an entry about a news event. The flaw in this page is notability, not the "one event" rule. Hairhorn (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, my initial aversion to this page was that it appeared to be self promotion by a spam username blocked user. Triplestop x3 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who made it? I assume since you marked as spam it was the organization? Not like they're going to get anything out of it, although I will probably volunteer again Camerocw (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]

• Delete. Blatant self-promotion of a purely locasl organisation. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I still hung up on this, I totally understand the aversion to it, but it seems to be only because its localized issue. Its a HUGE issue where it is, and I don't see anything stating that a thing be local is grounds for deletion 142.106.187.210 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
  • I don't see any harm from this "self-promotion", as this organization is not selling or using Wikipedia in any way to get money. This is a grassroots organization to clean up a very dirty Toronto. --Aatoth (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-promotion is unencyclopedic, that's why.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • wheres the proof its "self-promotion"? I take it from triple's comment that an account that seemed to be related was used to create it, but that doesn't mean it was the organization, AND even if it was it is still relevent and useful to have up 142.106.187.210 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
        • If your username is User:Onetoronto.ca, and you're editing an article called Onetoronto.ca, I think it's fair to assume they have a conflict of interest.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, I've noticed quite a few single purpose accounts on this discussion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • grrr if you guys would just use google... grrrr 76.67.17.93 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
  • I registered my account last year, but never really felt the need to use it. --Aatoth (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the link on the homepage of Onetoronto.ca, writing this article was clearly part of their PR launch. --Padraic 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as spam. It may be well-intentioned spam, but it is spam. At this point, the organisation is essentially a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 July 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.