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. Randykitty ( talk) 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Edmonton & Area Land Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTABILITY / WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find significant coverage in of this organization in independent, reliable, secondary sources. While there are a few news articles mentioning the organization and one page on the City of Edmonton's website, there's little else. There is an obnoxious amount of information here that can only be found in the WP:PRIMARY sources provided, some of which are also WP:FACEBOOK links. The article also contains substantial WP:PUFFERY, including the paragraph on the "Emerald Award" they won in 2013. I would've cleaned up the article to remove puffery, keep mainly secondary sources, and remove external links (including the PDF link in the middle of the article), but this would see most of the article content removed as it is. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support to Keep this article

I have removed many of the links to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust webpage plus some wording that I thought could be viewed as WP:PUFFERY. I have also submitted some requested changes on the talk page associated with the Edmonton and Area Land Trust Wikipedia page to add supporting links from other secondary sources - outside webpages and news sources. These sources also support the WP:NOTABILITY of this article. I appreciate your assistance in helping us comply with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Please let me know if you have additional recommendations - I would like to keep this page but make alterations as needed.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust.

Mjacklinealt ( talk) 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

New Changes to Edmonton and Area Land Trust Article

I have suggested a number of edits to streamline the Edmonton and Area Land Trust page, and suggested the addition of references to support the information written and the WP:NOTABILITY of the page itself.

These changes introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only, and ensures that information written is unique and not copied from another website.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust so I did not make these edits directly. I hope the changes meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. I am open to further suggestions.

Mjacklinealt ( talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment The changes that have been requested are to add references to the Edmonton Journal which would not be considered an impartial source in this respect. What is needed for the article are references to sources which are not connected in any way whatsoever to the subject of the article. Without these sources, the article's POV cannot be stated as being neutral. Unfortunately, seeing the COI editor state that their changes "introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only" seems to suggest that this editor does not fully grasp WP:IIS or the requirements of WP:N.  Spintendo  22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to help me improve this article.

With the previous suggested edits I have been trying to address the issues highlighted at the top of the page – that the article relies too much on primary sources and that the subject appears to not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

I reread the general notability guidelines WP:NOTABILITY as well as a number of associated pages to ensure I have a good grasp of this concept. I believe this page meets notability guidelines because of significant, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources such as the webpages of the Edmonton Nature Club (ENC) - http://edmontonnatureclub.org/endowment-for-land-conservation-and-stewardship.html and the City of Edmonton - https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/edmonton-area-land-trust.aspx. I realize these are primary sources and may not be considered fully independent in that they are involved in founding EALT, but they are entirely separately governed and made their webpages without influence from the Edmonton and Area Land Trust (EALT). The ENC has an elected board of directors who decide what they do, and the City of Edmonton webpage about EALT would have been created by staff and directed by elected officials. Are these unacceptable because they have any connection at all with EALT?

Whether those sources are acceptable or not, I have also looked through the suggested searches and found several sources of information that meet the most or all of the requirements of secondary, independent, verifiable sources. Would these be acceptable to support information in the article? I would format them properly and suggest them as an edit.

• This report by Canada West Foundation has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. http://cwf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CWF_BrightSpots_Report_SEP2012.pdf
• This news article from Science for Students has no link to EALT, and is a secondary and independent source. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/bee-hotels-are-open-business
• This peer reviewed Journal Article published in Human Ecology has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-013-9621-9#citeas

Could you recommend what you think should be improved about this article at this time? I appreciate you taking the time to read through this and help me improve this article. I would welcome further recommendations to prevent this page from being deleted.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust. Mjacklinealt ( talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (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.