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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Community Social Services

[edit]

Primary sources, a directory listing, and a trivial mention. Targeted viciously by SPAs. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient third party coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Can you find non-Detroit sources in the GOOG list? Or, cite some specific incidents that created national coverage? The article as written sounds like an ad with citations to directories and incidental mentions. Given how long it has been around, there are likely to be notable historical events of interest to wiki readers but we have no idea what they are and aren't supposed to be mind readers. I'm not sure what provoked the warning about voting but if there is significant interest, it should be possible to document notability, even if due to peripheral reasons rather than their main function. Given that wiki doesn't kill trees and needn't fit on a bookshelf, it isn't too hard to argue for inclusion but you still need to consider the objectives here.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

organisations don't necessarily need national coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 25 June 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.