Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenMedia.ca (2nd nomination)
- 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- OpenMedia.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to establish why it is notable. In the 15 days it was previously on AfD and the time since then there has been no significant improvements. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Promotional verbiage notwithstanding, the organization meets notability guidelines by way of coverage by the CBC, the Montreal Gazette and 24Hours. Nominator seems to be unclear about the differences between notability vs. the condition of the article. PKT(alk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No personal attacks, please. The last AfD was unresolved, so this one was necessary. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with PKT and also will be working on it today. Nihola (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PKT. Subject is notable, even if the article is need of clean-up.--JayJasper (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2011 (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.