Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advocis

: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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Advocis]]=

:{{la|Advocis}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advocis Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Advocis}})

No reliable sources covering it in depth, fails WP:GNG. Most sources covering it are just repeats of press releases made by Advocis itself. The article claims that Advocis is a self regulatory agency for insurance agents, yet this is clearly false as Advocis is a lobbying organization split from IIROC's predecessor as it would be a conflict of interest for a lobbying organization to also be a regulatory organization. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I added some sources from The Globe and Mail and the CBC, although I'm undecided if they push the page past WP:CORPDEPTH. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment : The Globe and Mail [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-advisor/advisor-news/article-whats-next-in-ai-for-financial-planners-boosting-customer-value/ article] is about the use of artificial intelligence for financial planning as discussed in a symposium held by Advocis, but [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-continuing-education-financial-advisors-1.4913192 this] CBC report and [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/business-investments-advisers-1.3483531 this] one place the association front and center at the need for regulating the industry. In any case, this is an association grouping some twelve thousand professionals in the finance and investment sector, a significant lobbying entity and it's not so easy to ignore it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete - I found some other minor coverage mentioning the group's advocacy efforts https://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2014/02/18/proposed_bill_would_regulate_financial_advisors_in_ontario.html https://www.advisor.ca/news/industry-news/advocis-to-ontario-government-follow-through-on-advisor-title-regs/ (the latter is more a rehash of a press release), but no in-depth profile that would put them into my weak keep territory. For example, the only organization history I could find is a letter they sent to the Canadian Department of Finance https://www.fin.gc.ca/consultresp/governrespns_10-eng.asp. This doesn't quite meet WP:GNG for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

: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.