Talk:Immigration Watch Canada

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --HardRightTurn (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not finished working on the article.
 * I declined the speedy deletion. Feel free to work on it. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. HardRightTurn (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined
---, I declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article with no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with claim of significance even if the claim is unsupported by reliable sources. However, I fix the page here per WP:SEP. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are my edits being reverted to MrX's edits? He's not the author of the article, but I've also incorporated his edits. I've added a number of references and will add a lot more in the next few days. HardRightTurn (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you keep blanking the page and re-inserting the deletion tag? Do you want the page deleted? Please read the welcome note on your talk page. Remember that you may be blocked from editing if you continue to vandalize wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As explained on your talkpage, being the author doesn't mean you own the article, see WP:OWN. Also their version is better, because your version has a mission statement, which is inherently promotional, see WP:MISSION, and is an overdetailed summary of events, which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed I understand the criteria for A7. I simply did not see a claim of significance in this:
 * - MrX 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article claimed to be a "Canadian anti-immigration organization" and reliable sources validated the claim which make the article to easily pass WP:CSD. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no sources when I tagged the article. The claim in itself is not significant.- MrX 00:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An article is not to claim "this topic is notable because...", for the claim to be significant. WP:NRVE stress that an article doesn't have to actually be sourced, as long as sources are available, editors are expected to source it and not to assume that it's somebody else's problem or tag it for deletion out of laziness. WP:HANDLE instructs editors to fix things that are fixable Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 02:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. CSD allows for articles about organizations to be speedily deleted if they do not make a credible claim of significance or importance. Significance is a lower threshold than notability, which in this case was not met. The lack of sources is secondary to the fact that there was no written claim of significance at the time I nominated it. As editors are NOTREQUIRED to do anything at Wikipedia, I'm puzzled by the implication that I somehow had a responsibility to find sources for the article myself.- MrX 03:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. CSD allows for articles about organizations to be speedily deleted if they do not make a credible claim of significance or importance. Significance is a lower threshold than notability, which in this case was not met. The lack of sources is secondary to the fact that there was no written claim of significance at the time I nominated it. As editors are NOTREQUIRED to do anything at Wikipedia, I'm puzzled by the implication that I somehow had a responsibility to find sources for the article myself.- MrX 03:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan B. Murray given as a "Co-founder".
Who, then, are the other founders? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.140.7 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

White supremacist?
Hi User:MoxyMoxy. Nice RS find thanks. I added this to "Notes". I will remove the white supremacist label because I think Hampshire is saying IWC is anti-immigration, not white supremacy? I am surprised IWC is even considered prominent.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In his 2013 publication, James Hampshire wrote, "Canada conspicuously lacks a nativist tradition or significant white supremacist parties. Immigration Watch Canada, the most prominent group lobbying for restrictions on immigration, is moderate by both European and American standards.
 * not a source but interesting read.--Moxy (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)