Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Canada

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 delete. StarM 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Canada

Article is an unsourced advertisement for a non-profit organization. Speedy tag removed without explanation. No reliable sources provided, none found that are not press releases or other similar documents. TN‑X-Man 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nominator is absolutely correct. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPA editor who ~~created the article~~ removed your Speedy Delete tag, Tnxman307, had a connection to the subject -- you should've put it back (along with a COI tag -- check the editor's name). Nonetheless, perhaps this forum can erase this decidedly non-notable subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it should not be deleted as spam (see this revision, the last one prior to AndreaACE's involvement in the article), it should nevertheless be deleted as a non-notable charity. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AndreaACE was reported to WP:UAA and blocked. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Google News archive search shows plenty of references. I think those references are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked through the first page of results in that search. I did not see any in-depth coverage of ACE. It was mentioned several times in passing (either as promoting a prize competition or team organizer), but I did not see any coverage of the company of itself. Granted, I did not look in-depth beyond the first page, but skimming other results seems to produce more of the same. TN‑X-Man 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Eastmain, but too much of that stuff is PR Web, MarketWire, Business Wire self-promotion. What might help is rewriting the article -- even taking it down to a stub would probably save it. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:COMPANY. Fails primary criteria that organization is the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Author of article also was dishonest on reliable sources findable on google.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 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.