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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAYVE[edit]

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

Apparently fails the general notability guidelines for having no reliable source coverage. And WP:NGO for being local in scope and have no reliable source coverage. Lakokat 14:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as no ghits other than blog sites, and limited content. While it is a good cause, Wikipedia is not here to promote causes. No prejudice to re-creation if it later attracts significant national press coverage. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly an admirable cause, it's a group whose notability is exclusive to one individual municipal area and whose article features no properly reliable sources, thereby failing both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2013 (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.