Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Watch 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 no consensus. We have good argument from both sides. The keep votes emphasize that all the publicity of the company was generated during a short period; the delete votes point out that there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources which mention the organization and thus it passes WP:GNG. The delete votes numerically prevail as 2:1, but since the overall number of votes is not so great, and the keep votes are more policy based (WP:ONEEVENT does not indeed apply), I close this as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Immigration Watch Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First two GHits are the group page and the WP article. Looks like WP:1EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, as all of the organization's coverage is limited to the flyering event, and I might go so far as to say that this is an article on an event that doesn't meet WP:EVENT masquerading as an ORG article and trying to use WP:ROUTINE to establish passing WP:GNG.MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question - WP:1EVENT is for biographies. Is there precedent for applying this to organizations? ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kvng: WP:1EVENT is not applicable toward organizations. The relevant guidelines to consult are WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. North America1000 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete They were briefly in the news in 2014 for some controversial fliers they put out. I could not find any mention of the group in Reliable Sources before or since 2014. I think they were basically a flash in the pan. The group seems to still exist, but it does not seem that they ever had lasting notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG appear to be met. Excepting WP:1EVENT, which doesn't apply here, there doesn't seem to be good consensus on deletion based on WP:EVENT arguments. In the absence of consensus, we keep. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nom amended - WP:NOTNEWS is probably the closest I can get to "an organization only notable for doing one thing a few years ago," so I have added that, and ORGDEPTH is definitely not met by coverage of one event. Several news outlets covering the same event is not significant coverage; it's WP:COATRACKING and whatever the shortlink is to the guideline that says 100 news sources saying the same thing is not evidence of depth of coverage. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's always a bad sign when the first two google hits are the organizations's own website, and our article. The next hit is to the Huffington Post, Canada edition, which has three short articles on them. All published within a seven month span in 2014. Normally, I'd consider HuffPo a WP:RS, but, 1) they only covered it in the Canada edition, 2) the articles are short, 3) they're really about specific events, i.e. the flyers, not the organization itself, and 4) they all are within a short time span.. So, I don't think this is enough to meet WP:GNG. Also, HuffPo Canada is the only WP:RS I'm seeing. Nobody else seems to be picking up on it. Continuing to work down the first page of google hits, I see social media like twitter and facebook, and some political blogs. Not the kind of coverage we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the policies cited in the nomination have been amended, I still cannot close this based on a clear consensus, and will therefore give the community another seven days to attempt to form one. KaisaL (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Although the policies cited in the nomination have been amended, I still cannot close this based on a clear consensus, and will therefore give the community another seven days to attempt to form one. KaisaL (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources from CBC, Toronto Star, Global News in the article, plus more available through a Google News search would indicate that it passes the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as this is all only expected coverage from a news event and controversy that seems to suggest the group was therefore best known for, there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 13 July 2016 (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.