Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Adjustment Fund

: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. Content appears to be a copyright violation. Redirected to 2009 Canadian federal budget as a possible search term. Flowerparty^☀ 07:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Community Adjustment Fund]]=

:{{la|Community Adjustment Fund}} ([{{fullurl:Community Adjustment Fund|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Adjustment Fund}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Political propaganda. It is unclear why this fund/program should warrant an article - it's just a part of the budget of the Government of Canada. PK T(alk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge to appropriate article on budget of Canada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep' - large Government program for the size of its budget. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: this appears to be copied from [http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/106.asp here]. (That's a government website, so Crown copyright applies, per [http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/34.asp#B this].) TheFeds 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's a large expenditure, but the Canadian federal budget is huge and contains lots of large expenditures. Nothing in this article suggests why this fund is of any more interest than any other government expenditures (or even that it is notable). Right now the article reads like propaganda, and absent any evidence of real notability, I'm not sure it could ever be more than a series of talking points of the government of the day. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (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.