Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spelling Bee of 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Bee of Canada

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lots of google hits, but most of them are Wikipedia mirrors, address listings and other trivial mentions; the only significant coverage I've found is this and this, which still aren't that in-depth. If kept, it would need major fixing--as it's completely unreferenced--and it would be at risk of becoming a permastub. SBOC does good work, but at least right now it does not seem to be notable; perhaps in the future it would be. ekips 39 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include [1], [2], [3], [4]. Additional sources cover winners of the spelling bee, and includes some coverage about the organization and events, although the winners, rather than the spelling bee itself, are the primary focus of the coverage in these latter sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a clear-cut case, as it appears to fall under WP:BARE (unless I'm being totally thickheaded and it's actually well within GNG). I too noticed a good deal of coverage of spelling bee winners but didn't link any of it because I thought it was too trivial, though perhaps I should have. Since this may ultimately be kept I'll try and get around to fixing it up. (I'd love to see some more participation, though--anyone?) ekips 39 06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate the discussion between Ekips39 and Northamerica1000. The best of first four references listed by Northamerica1000 is this one. I think that with it and other coverage, the program is notable. From 25 years of operations, I would expect that more statistics and overviews should be available (not yet found and reflected in the article though). In that best reference and some others, I gather that the program is meant to energize minorities and immigrants especially; the article does not yet reflect that. The organization's website doesn't state that either, as far as I can tell, but the founder's expression of regret that relatively few young black Canadians were in the finalists seems interesting. I think it'd be a better article if some indication of that wish and imperfect accomplishment could be expressed. As a charitable non-profit program, we don't need to be so concerned about promotion. It seems like a great program, interesting to learn about, worth allowing Wikipedia readers to find out about it. For U.S. charitable nonprofits, I often get some info about them from Guidestar (with free account) to add to articles. I don't know the corresponding source for Canadian ones, but I may try to find out and to add something to this article that way if I can. Keep. --do ncr am 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, there are quite enough sources; thanks to Northamerica1000 for pointing them out, and to Doncram for giving some pointers as to what to add to the article. I'll get back to improving it when I have time. (There was a list of spelling bee winners before I removed it, and I would have liked to keep it in but was unable to find sources for it. Anyone else who finds sources is welcome to readd such a list. There are news stories covering some of the individual winners, but my fear was that a list built from these would be incomplete.) ekips 39 15:30, 8 January 2015 (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.