Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Aid Society (Canada)

:{{la|Children's_Aid_Society_(Canada)}} - (View AfD)(View log)

• This article is a complete mess. It was obviously written with an "axe grinding" slant against the CAS. I asked for help editing it quite some time ago as well as put the NOV tag on. The only responses I got was from someone who felt that the article was too pro CAS. I'm not confident enough to re-write the article, but I think it's a shame to leave such a poorly written piece on Wikipedia as well as such a slanted piece against CAS itself. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• As currently written, Delete Keep - while there is no doubt that CAS is notable, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those that hate CAS. Completely violates WP:NPOV. The idea to revert and protect is better than deleting the article. (GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
• Keep The last neutral version of the article is from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children%27s_Aid_Society_(Canada)&diff=286965908&oldid=285954769 April 2009]. This should be kept and at minimum reverted to that version for now, but the keep should be only after major restructuring and a definite long period of semi-protection because of heavy IP hammering at the POV. Nate • (chatter) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think this would be totally appropriate. I would have no issues with this arrangement. I also have no issues with a section on Criticisms, as there ARE plenty to be had, but the article as it is reads as a soapbox. (Apologies is this isn't kosher to put this here, but wanted to throw my two cents in. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, obviously (lots of sources and an important subject).Biophys (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Plenty of sources available and notability intact. What remains is regular editing which is not a good reason for deletion. -- Banjeboi 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Revert to the last neutrally worded revision and request semi-protection. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:Comment I did attempt to request semi-protection last night without success. Nate • (chatter) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep If you sincerely doubt the truthfulness of any statement, you tag it with two { followed by the word fact and then two } and {{fact}} will appear. If you believe its one sided, giving undue weight, then discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:Just for the record, I did state in my OP that I *HAD* asked for help on the talk page. None was forth coming other than someone who thought the page was too pro CAS. As such, the article itself is a disgrace and a poor example of what should be on Wikipedia. Hence my agreement on the revert to last NPOV. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The topic is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Basically the Children's Protection unit in Canada. Very notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Clearly notable as an organisation. Content disputes are not resolved by deleting an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2010 (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.