Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Girls in Training

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, as the concerns were resolved. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Girls in Training

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is it's own site. There are many church groups out there, this is not a notable one. This has also been orphaned for almost 2 years. Undeath (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is no indication as to its magnitude or wide-spread acceptance or notability. Racepacket (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as it stands doesn't support notability, I believe that it is notable and it could be improved to meet standards. A quick Google search provides additional information that could be included and referenced, including from the Canadian Encyclopedia and at least a couple of books. Content could also be added to the articles on the supporting organizations - the United and Presbyterian churches in Canada - that would eliminate its orphan status. I'll try to take a crack at improving it. Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to assert notability. Believing that it is notable and being notable are two different things. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear; I should have said that by improving the article, it would demonstrate notability. I've done some work on it, including:

adding more information
wikifying it, so that it is not a dead-end
adding a references section, including a link to the topic's article in The Canadian Encyclopedia
linking to the article from other pages that already referenced the subject, so that it is no longer orphaned
adding further external links

Hoping that enough has been done to take another look. Mlaffs (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequately sourced. I beleive that sourcing, rather than notability, was the real issue, and that has been rectified. Played a significant role in Canadian society in its time. Agent 86 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it contains plenty of sources; they just need to be made into inline citations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 6 February 2008 (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.