Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and more detailed here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Non notable website run by two individuals of questionable notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, two out of the five reference do not work in this poorly written article and the three references that do work, this website is not the subject of the article. Morover, the website is now defunct. We should also be very careful about WP:BLP as this article makes many serious unsourced claims about two individuals. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to involve several court cases that may be notable, involving 'firsts'. Are we so sure that this should be deleted? Hmains 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A signficant group and a landmark court case which focused on the limits of speech on the Internet. AnnieHall 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group easily meets WP:WEB, having been the subject of multiple newspaper articles:
- Racists ordered to stop spreading hate over Web: Landmark decision Natalie Alcoba. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.11
- Web-hosting service found guilty COLIN PERKEL. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.13
- Web messages hate, tribunal rules Richard Blackwell. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 11, 2006. p. A.18
- CANADA RIGHT-WING GROUP CUT AS ROAD SPONSOR BARRY BROWN. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Apr 22, 2001. p. B.7
BLP issues can be handled by editing the article. Note that BLP does not prohibit properly sourced information about individuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all the sources above, the subject matter is Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson and not the website, the website gets minor mention. BLP issues can be dealt better by deleting the article as it is of questionable notability and if the unsource claims were to be removed, there wouldn't be much left in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that articles with titles like "Web-hosting service found guilty" can be said to barely mention the web hosting service. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web hosting service != Web site Pocopocopocopoco 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You've got to be kidding me. There's no question this is notable enough. --Mista-X 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. J 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable group, without question. CJCurrie 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable group that set a notable precedent. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Will Beback. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:WEB applies to websites. CETC is not about a website, but an organization. Ground Zero | t 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most users in this AFD indicating that we should keep this article have been canvassed by user:AnnieHall. Eventhough she has not explicity directed the users how to vote, she has only canvassed users who agree with her. This should be taken into account by the closer of this AFD. I also believe that WP:COAT applies to this article as this article attempts to give excessive focus to the articles Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson which are of nominal notability. Pocopocopocopoco 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I commented on this claim in the Tri-City Skins deletion nomination. I have no idea how people will vote and I don't want to. If the article is garbage and should be deleted, so be it (though I personally don't agree). If it should stay but be improved, it would be nice to have input from people who are knowledgeable about the individuals and groups in question. It should also be mentioned that I did ask for input from a user who has disagreed with many of my edits. I think I'm being fair and would ask Pocopocopocopoco to please assume good faith. AnnieHall 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-City Skins Ground Zero | t 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where you got that from, but I defiantly wasn't canvassed. I found it on WP:CWNB. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge Tri-City Skins into this article - they seem to be practically the same organisation, we don't need a separate article for each. Terraxos 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - As I mentioned for the AFD for Tri-City Skins, why not just move whatever sourced information there is from this article, if any, to the articles of Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson (if it's not already there) and delete this article, as this article seems very coatish. Pocopocopocopoco 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable group. Black as pitch 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is clearly notable, and saying "their website doesn't achieve the website notability criteria" is irrelevant. I found that three of the references worked, and all talked substantially about this group. 199.71.183.2 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously an article which speaks volumes on unfortunate acts of organized hate activity in southern Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it's as defunct as the Third Reich it should be kept just as the records of the Nuremberg Laws are kept. IZAK 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability of the organization appears to be established in the article, although there is much room for improvement. Karanacs 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not well sourced, but is sourced enough were it could be improved. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I did work to improve the Tri-City Skins article and I would like to do the same for this one when I get the time. AnnieHall 05:28, 30 October 2007 (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.