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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This seems like a very worthy cause but as a local charity is not demonstrating notability under Wikipedia’s policies. No secondary sources providing substantial coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was the first AIDS service organisation in Canada [1]. Someone just needs to hit the history books - it's a usually well-documented period of LGBT history for organisations like this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m really not sure that we can claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for an article that has been poorly sourced for 10+ years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a terrible argument - Wikipedia has tens if not hundreds of thousands of long-poorly-sourced articles on topics on which plenty of spurces exist (I've been making it a project to fix up hundreds of them in my areas of my interest in the last couple of years with great success.) It's not there "must be sources", it's that there "are" sources: you can't tell the history of the AIDS epidemic in Canada, or of LGBT history in Canada that covers the AIDS epidemic, without talking about AIDS Vancouver, and that story has been written. It even pops up peripherally in the mass-market American histories due to them being established so early as a community response to AIDS that it tied into the Gaëtan Dugas story, even though those books had no interest in Canada besides the Dugas connection. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Drover's Wife Any suggestions of sources I could try? I cannot find anything that would indicate notability - and ‘’WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument for AfD. I’m genuinely trying to rescue this article, if it’s possible. I’m not convinced right now. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're "genuinely trying to rescue the article", perhaps the twelve thousand, five hundred and nineteen hits in newspapers.com , tons of which have detailed and substantive coverage of the organisation, might be useful, just for a start. And that's not even the place that I'd start because you're likely to get even better coverage than that in the history books (given my experience of researching LGBT and specifically AIDS history). To be blunt, your insistence that you "cannot find anything that would indicate notability" is starting to look like you're taking the piss. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Drover's Wife firstly, don’t swear at me. I won’t tolerate that abuse. If you think this article is worth saving, I think it’s best if you demonstrate notability by showing your best three sources as per WP:THREE. Just saying that I should “check the history books” or counting hits is not acceptable. There are plenty of organisations in the UK that have done similar good work that are not notable enough for their own article. This isn’t personal, I’m following WPs policies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't just give you three, I gave you literal thousands of substantive hits. The newspapers.com link above demonstrates the most extraordinarily clear pass of WP:GNG of any AfD I've seen in quite some time. I suggest you read it before you dismiss it as "counting hits". It's interesting that your insistence that you were "genuinely trying to rescue the article" was dropped the second I provided you enough detailed and quality coverage in reliable sources to bash out a WP:GA on the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Drover's Wife come on, you’ve been here long enough to know that just saying “there are thousands of hits, it must be notable!” is not acceptable. Give me your best three and you might convince me. Google links only please I don’t have a Newspapers.com account Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not just saying that they're thousands, that link helpfully provides excerpts of the sorts of content it is, which is why if you'd read it you know there's enough material for a WP:GA there, which would be enough for a reasonable person to be "convinced". I'm just going to keep linking these thousands of articles providing good detailed coverage for the benefit of anyone who's not bent on intentionally ignoring them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I’m not ignoring them, but I don’t have a Newspapers.com account and I’m not prepared to put my card details in to set one up. I’ve always found that WP:RS tend to be found on Google News or JSTOR. Not on this occasion. I am fully prepared to spend some time rescuing this article if you could just provide any independent sources.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Newspapers.com is part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, and you don't even need that access to see the excerpts on the page I linked (again, if needed). Google News has never been good for historical coverage on any topic and JSTOR, while a reliable source, is not in anyone's definition a comprehensive one for coverage of more than very broad subject-matter. Deciding you specifically won't use the right databases for reliable coverage of a given subject is not actually a reflection on the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • See, I didn’t even know that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library existed. Why didn’t a friendly editor help a relative newbie out, rather than being rude and obnoxious? This is a wonderful treasure trove that you could have politely pointed me towards rather than what you’ve just done. Never mind, eh? Assume good faith in future, I’m only here to try and improve things. WP:AGF Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So, I take it you'll be withdrawing your nomination now that we're acknowledging that huge amount of detailed coverage exists? The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I’ll take that as an apology, I guess. You’re right, there are a lot of hits, it’ll take me a few days to go through all of these properly. I’ll get back to you. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Normally the suggestion that it might take you days to go through the volume of reliable sources might be just a touch of an indication that it passes WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as The Drover's Wife has made clear that there are extensive sources. @Cardiffbear88: If you are a n00b, I would suggest you lurk in these AFD discussions for a bit, and then join them, before starting to nominate articles. Keep a list, and then after watching for a bit, you will have a better sense of what should/not be deleted. And you will learn the ropes... for example you should have done a more complete search WP:BEFORE your good faith nomination. --Theredproject (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theredproject Newspapers.com is not mentioned in WP:BEFORE - which I completed in detail before nominating. I’m not a n00b, I’m a “relative newbie” compared to The Drover's Wife, an experienced editor of many years. And this isn’t my first AfD - check out my AfD stats. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the earlier comments. Clearly passes WP:GNG. --MrClog (talk) 12:59, 15 March 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.