Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DailyFlag for DailyBread

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. KTC (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFlag for DailyBread

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

A project restricted to just two roads, 32 homes; no evidence of coverage beyond local media; A charity with revenue of <C$8,000 pa is not notable. Vast majority of substance of article is from an editor who has no other edits, leading to suspicion of COI and vanity. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - This topic ~~meets WP:GNG and~~ has received significant coverage in reliable sources with regional coverage. Source examples include:

Advent flags make $2,500 for the Daily Bread Food Bank. East York Mirror.
Flags For Charity. (Audio interview, runs 6:02). CBC Toronto.

There's also these sources, which are more local in their coverage

Waving flags for Christmas in the Beach. Beach Mirror. ("...distributed every Thursday to over 21,200 households in The Beach and Riverdale areas in eastern Toronto..." – see [1])
Daily Flag project back on Leuty and Violet. Beach Metro. (Distribution map).

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East York Mirror link: page carries "Community Contributions" tag, and highlights that source became aware through an e-mail from the organiser. Current main news story on that site is "Local scouts fundraising for trip to Jamboree". This is not an indication of wider notability. East York directly neighbours the Beach area according to Google Maps, still very local coverage.

CBC Toronto: local interest snippet on local radio.

Millions of small local initiatives take place every year. Wikipedia is not the place to list every local charity and community cohesion effort. Kevin McE (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I changed my !vote above to a comment. The geographic depth of coverage appears to be insufficient, per this discussion. While the topic may just meet WP:N per a strict interpretation of the guideline page, the consensus here is to delete the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organisation is very local in nature, and the coverage reflcts that. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the coverage all seems very local and the arguments I could come up would all be very WP:ILIKEIT in nature. I would like to think this might be WP:TOOSOON but none of that helps the subject meet WP:ORGDEPTH right now. Stalwart111 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've had difficulty with community art before. I think any kind of non-trivial notice from reliable sources that deal with this sort of subject from a social or artistic perspective would show notability --the standard here is the same sort of critical notice that would apply to any form of art. And I think significant attention from regional and national sources ok, as usual with the GNG. But local newspapers will cover anything, and are not discriminating. This applies to the local affiliates of national broadcasters also--we need to look behind the name of the publication. In the past, the NYTimes published regional editions for the different NYC suburbs I think we've been very reluctant to accept articles there at any more value than a local paper as the consensus (though I seem to remember myself having sometimes but not always said otherwise). In practice, we seem to have sensibly modified the GNG as if it said, If we thing it ought to be considered notable, borderline substantial sources are sufficient; if we think it unimportant, they aren't. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hyperlocal, no evidence of interest or impact outside of the immediate community. Kudos to these folks for raising money in a fun way, but it's not an encyclopedia topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 9 January 2013 (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.