Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadaka.net


 * 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 of the debate was delete.

With regards to very new contributors, Wikipedia welcomes with opens arms, however these discussion have two parts: While everyone's "facts" are equal, the presumption is that more experianced wikipedians will be better able to judge how a particular article "fits" into wikipedia. Thus they are often given greater weight in waffling. In this discussion there was no new evidence presented, and the guideline for inclusions of websites was mentioned explicitly several times. I thank everyone for taking the time to contribute. brenneman {T}  {L}  06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The "discovery" phase, in which evidence is found and presented, and
 * The "waffle" phase, in which the relevence of the evidence is debated.

Canadaka.net
This article was de-prodded without comment. Initially prodded as appears to fail WP:WEB. James084 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete fails to meet any guideline setforth in WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, at all. Not even barely. --Dogbreathcanada 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The following was left on Talk:Canadaka.net by PeterFinn. I am reposting here as it is only fair to have the original submitters comments listed. James084 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a US citizen and California resident who joined Canadaka.net as a member about a year ago. I've since donated US$100 to help keep the site running. It is not a pay-per-view site and the owner, Trevor May, is subsidizing the site as a labor of love. I posted the site when someone mentioned it was not on Wiki and the fact that the site has been noted on CBC & CTV as having a measurable influence on the recent election and the Gomery affair (discussion of the affair was banned in Canada but this site stood up for free speech by posting links to US sites where content could be found). I'll be happy to learn about Wikifying the page and I will take responsibility for it. But I will also stand by my premise that not only is the site notable (at least in Canada) it is acknowledged as having an influence outside of the site itself. Delete the item if you must, but the site will continue to grow and it will play a greater role in the next issues facing Canada: a new defence policy, oil sands, US trade, and Parliamentary and Quebec Separatism elections.

Visit the site and check out the forums before making a decision. It is a serious site and the discussions are quite real. Thanks, Peter.


 * Keep The site has been featured on CTV and radio stations across Canada. One of the largest Canadian forums on the internet. If these sites can be on Wiki surely Canadaka.net can. Vive_le_Canada, Canadian Democratic Movement, Rabble. Also someone is going around Wiki imposing as me with the username "TrevorMay". This is NOT the Trevor that owns Canadaka.net. I have emailed wikipedia to see if they can do something about this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaka (talk • contribs)
 * Keep For all of the above stated reasons. Please ignore the trolls and imposters. TrevorMay 00:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

--The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)
 * Keep There is an imposter on the web, arrest that log in! http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=262511#262511
 * Delete This place sux, if you question the liberal's you won't last a week JackassCKA 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad, then go make your own site TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Clearly CKA qualifies due to the extensive CTV coverage, therefore you must keep it. TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you are going to say that, your the admin. JackassCKA
 * Of course you are going to say it sucks, you are banned for disruptive behavior and gay bashing. TrevorMay 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the most important sites in Canada IceOwl 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I use this site as much as anyone but it certainly isn't "notable" Being listed on here is nothing more then website promotion.DerbyX 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who brought this entry back? It was deleted a few hours ago.JackassCKA 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB used to contain a criterion stating that a website was notable if its Alexa ranking was 100,000 or better. CanadaKA and Rabble would both meet that criterion; Vive wouldn't, but it gets over on its association with Mel Hurtig, Robin Mathews and Duncan Cameron. But the 100K thing isn't listed as a criterion anymore. So we look at media citations — the claimed CTV and radio citations do seem to pan out, from what I can tell, and Alexa's webtraffic graph shows a massive spike in per-day page hits in late February, which clearly suggests some kind of media coverage happened around that time. (Though I would appreciate a few more verified coverage links, if possible.) So, while the sockpuppets swarming around this do give me pause, I'm willing to call it a cautious keep, although it does need some cleanup to conform to Wikipedia style, and I do reserve the right to change my mind if people don't start behaving. (And as for Canadian Democratic Movement, while it looks like an interesting site I'm not sure how, if at all, it meets any of Wikipedia's criteria. Of the four sites that have been named, it's the one for which I'm least able to see a legitimate notability claim.) Bearcat 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article reads as a promotional piece and does not provide any citations for claims such as ”one of the largest”. If it’s claims to notability could be properly cited, I might change my vote. As it stands, I see nothing to warrant an article for this. —GrantNeufeld 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable and well publicized site which meets all wiki guidelines. -QBC 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the WP:WEB guidelines?, Not only does it not meet "all" the wiki guidelines. It doesn't meet ANY JackassCKA 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the best sites on the web! -Jaime Souviens 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't even care that it doesnt meet any of your stupid criteria, It's the best site so keep it.*lily* 04:52, 7 March 2006 (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.