Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortress Of Freedom


 * 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 all. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fortress Of Freedom

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

A collection of related articles created by user User:Sprams, all featuring related apparently non-notable people and organizations, all with similarly poor and unverifiable sourcing. In fact the same unverifiable sources are used for all of these articles. I believe these should be deleted because there is no independent evidence of notability.

I suggest that those reading take the time to investigate at least a few of these articles in-depth, and in particular pay attention to the references given for each article. You will find that the following sources are the only ones used in all of these articles:


 * A single article, "Media Organization On The Move" from a publication called "The Stump" whose ISSN (1925-0444) I cannot find in any database. Even if it exists, I suspect it of being self-published, and in any case a single article can hardly lend notability to such a diverse range of subjects.
 * I also found NO EVIDENCE that this exists in any form. Though I did find a segment in The New Republic called The Stump...  isn't it ironic? -Addionne (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Various references to unremarkable Government of Canada business registration entries, corporation registrations, routine statutory publications in the Canada Gazette, and CRTC filings. These serve to confirm the existance of the various entities, but do nothing to demonstrate notability.


 * References to "The Fortress Newspaper" which is one of the articles listed here, and appears to be under the control of the Fortress Of Freedom organization.


 * A book, "A Slant On Life And Living" with an ISBN which cannot be verified, but which I assume is self-published.
 * Turns out this an album released by FOF records and a related book of sheet music published by FOF. Unless it is REALLY BIG, page 9 of this book cannot possibly contain enough info about all these subjects to count as significant coverage for each.  -Addionne (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Another book, "Protest! The Fall of Civil Disobedience" which is verifiable, but published by Fortress of Freedom.


 * Sundry vaguely-related sources such as the audience figures for a radio station which allegedly carried Fortress of Freedom material.

In particular it's worth noting that the TV audience figures claimed in the Fortress Of Freedom article seem to be misleading; it is clear from the clip of the show on the fortressoffreedom.com website that the show was a paid broadcast, infomercial style. (For future reference, the clip begins with a disclaimer at 00:52; "The following program is presented as a paid advertisment. The opinions, statements, representations, and/or warranties contained in the said program explicit or implied are those of the participant and/or sponsor.")

It is clear that the association, Maurice Ali, the newspaper, the record company, the documentary and the documentary subject are all closely related, and there is no evidence of notability for any of them other than the references to sources clearly under the editorial control of the subjects themselves.

In short none of these tightly inter-related articles demonstrate any evidence of notability from an editorially-independent source.

Delete all as nominator. Thparkth (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction - as he points out below, some of these articles were created by User:Tafyug. This does not affect my deletion rationale. Thparkth (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, without any further outside sources, these appear to be well-crafted self-promotion and little more. -- N D Steve 10 ( talk ) 04:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all. These advertisements seem to be getting savvier and savvier the more Wikipedia ages. It looks like the author read the MoS, but this article still completely fails the WP:RS and WP:N guidelines. Referencing your own magazine is never a good sign, and I can't find any news sources verifying this thinktank's notability. Nice catch, nom.--hkr Laozi speak  06:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep all: Since the OP states the articles were written by Sprams I guess I can participate in the discussion.  Instead of judging each article individually the OP has nominated they all be judged in bulk and deleted.  Voting seems to endorse this as all or nothing so I am making comments  as such. In these eight articles, we are dealing with mostly separate individuals and corporations which are also separate legal entities.  The only constant unifying entity for all articles is a brown skinned Muslim man called Maurice Ali. It is debatable whether Mr. Ali's book published by a corporation is self-published, the reference is only for identification purposes anyway.  Getchell's book is definitely not self-published for that same reason.  The newspaper is published by FOF Inc. with input from the non-profit but that is as far as it goes.  It has no relationship now to the archiving corporation or the record label or Donald Brasseur, so really should be a valid reference in those cases.  I am pretty sure the ISSN on "The Stump" publication is valid and don't know why it does not work for the OP.  Anyway those are just side issues and here are the main arguments:


 * 1. Donald Brasseur.  For musical artists one valid point of notability (good enough for an article to stand) is a half-hour show devoted to the artist which appeared on July 26, 2010, But I will offer evidence that Don has been the subject of two shows from the 1950s through BBC and one show with CBC in the nineties (one clip also shows some morning show with CITY TV here in Toronto before the CBC clip).  I started that article and it has Don's service number (War experience and medals) that can be traced through the DOD here in Canada.  I have radio recordings and video recordings with plenty evidence that Donald Brasseur is notable without a doubt.  Only thing is that Don is 85 and his last interview was seventeen years ago with the CBC - well before the Internet, Google and the wayback machine.  So the only Internet material comes from these various sources related by the brown skinned Muslim man Maurice Ali.  But I have read the notability requirements and they state that an article can not be deleted if there is a good possibility those sources could be located.  I am sure with effort the CBC show could be located.  The CTV show is definitely able to locate and that is more than enough to keep both of Don's articles.  Since this is an all or nothing affair, I guess they all stay.


 * http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv
 * http://iaij.com/CityTV_CBC.wmv
 * http://www.donaldbrasseur.com/DonBrasseurAM740.wma
 * http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4958#4958
 * http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121


 * With regard to the television programs, they are real TV programs and not infomercials or advertisements you have the Certification numbers so Google it and you will find it in the French and English listings from the CRTC website. Both networks review the material for suitability and are under absolutely no obligation to air it - so the show really made it on the air as any other TV show.   I have two files with the certification letters:


 * http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121
 * http://fortressoffreedom.com/CRTC4.jpg


 * A show that starts off by saying "What you are about to see is an experiment in free speech" will always have the usual disclaimer at the beginning (BTW, the guy in that half hour TV show is the lead person in AAVRY KNAPP - also up for deletion as non-notable)


 * 2. Since the OP has nominated a bulk deletion, he has allowed me the opportunity to enter in an argument that can't be considered with an individual article deletion discussion, but since this is a bulk debate it looks like we can finally expect an answer: With regard to the not-for-profit journalist association:


 * Why are we picking on this article (connected to the brown skinned Muslim guy) which at least presents references when the vast majority of associations in the category (Canadian Journalist Associations) do not have a single reference and has in some cases stood for years like that?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Association_of_Journalists


 * CJA has the largest number of members and largest professional number of journalists and does not have a single reference (actually that is kind of laughable when you think about it). The "pat" response for individual deletion requests is that each article is evaluate individually but since we are doing it en-mass here the question is now valid.  Since I believe this debate is resolved by someone with official status, we should receive a reply outside of the standard response.  The same argument can be used for the newspaper article and for the record label article.


 * 3. And as for the bio of the brown skinned Muslim guy Maurice Ali, well one of Wikis administrators worked on the bio and did not seem to think it had any red flags - just saying there are more opinions on that article which may not be the same as the OPs.


 * Finally, when I saw this deletion request I sent a message to the journalist org (IAIJ) that they might want to see the Wiki machine in action, so we may or may not get an article out of this - up to them - just saying many eyes are watching this (if they do I suspect they will forward a draft to your chief people/founder for response as quoting "Klingon272 said" just does not seem journalistic ). Wiki's main objective was to archive all of human knowledge, wholesale deletions of articles like this do not seem to follow that objective.  Nobody has claimed the articles are a hoax, just that the references are weak.  The OP seems to have requested a Sprams article be deleted a week or two ago and was merged/redirected by an administrator, that is now again up for deletion - just showing that the OP has been doing this before to articles connected to the brown skinned man with a Muslim name.  These articles are not being given the chance for other editors to find references to improve it, AAVRY KNAPP has only been up a few days and Don's show less than 24 hour before being lumped in here for deletion.  Read all the notability and reference criteria, none of it is absolute, and this is done deliberately (you will read "Articles should instead of Articles "must" - things like that).


 * Let the debate continue (BTW, I have been photographing/archiving the pages in question, Just an FYI). Oh!  Here is the audience figures the OP said were vague and could not find, it took me all of thirty seconds  ( http://zoomerradio.ca/about/ ).  They claim half a million and I 548,000 and I bet with more search we can nail down that number.  Pity the OP did not try to improve the articles and instead just offered all of them up for deletion.  And remember to wear your poppy for Remembrance Day (November 11), hopefully Donald - who took a bullet/shrapnel for us in WW2 - does not celebrate that day with his life story being deleted at Wikipedia.
 * Tafyug (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - I would like to respond briefly to the points Tafyug has raised. 1. The Donald Brasseur documentary was clearly aired as paid programming. This page on fortressoffreedom.com clearly shows the contract itself with CTV (search for "contract from CTV") with the heading "PAID PROGRAMMING CONTRACT". This means that we are dealing with what is essentially a self-published TV show. Not a problem in any way, except that it means it can not be used to establish notability, in the same way that it could if CTV had commissioned or purchased the show as regular content with commercial value. 2. I can only assure you that skin colour is not a factor here. 3. Without seeing the wider picture across all of these articles, it may not have been obvious to another editor that the notability claim for Mr. Ali depends entirely on sources that he either controls or is closely connected to. Finally, I did not previously nominate any of these for deletion, but I did add notability and primarysources tags to one of them, which may be what Tafyug is referring to.Thparkth (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator is not denigrating Islam or people of Middle Eastern-descent, and it's a silly ad hominem and in bad faith to accuse him as such. His rationale for deletion is that it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS), and the articles clearly do not. Wikipedia's guidelines are flexible, but there is no reason why these entries should be exempt from the same scrutiny that is applied to every other article. No amount of pathos changes that.--hkr Laozi speak  15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the argument that other unreferenced articles exist is a flawed one. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. If they were nominated, they could possibly be deleted as well (depending on whether reliable sources exist, and simply are not included).--hkr Laozi speak  15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - also Delete. I encourage you to check out WP:AGF and read about Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith on the part of all editors.  Your accusations of racism and dramatic appeal about veterans above are unfounded, unnecessary - and provide no value to this discussion.  These articles were nominated because they do not show notability.  That does not mean none exists, but that the nominator did not feel they had enough coverage in reliable sources.  I agree.  If you can track down more sources, please add them to the article.  Otherwise, my argument is Delete.
 * -Addionne (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator's points are sound, in that the sources provided are problematic. I can confirm that the subjects exist, which is good as far as it goes, but I'm not seeing anything that really shows notability, under our rules. I would add, in reference to one of the Keep comments above, that claiming that the nominator is racist is precisely the wrong argument to make in this case. It might be different if the nomination was "Delete because subject is of X race". But that's not the case here. You may also wish to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you're correct that we review these articles as a group, rather than as individual subjects, but that does not mean that the existence (or absence) of other related articles has any impact on whether these articles should be kept. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. A couple of things.   First of all this interrelated argument is flawed.  If the Brasseur show was produced by Fireworks and lobbied by Canwest to play on Global TV and then written about in the National Post, nobody would see a problem with notability.  But all those corporations are  - or were -   owned/controlled by the same entity/people.  The multi-faceted organization (in the subject articles for deletion) was patterned after the big multinational media conglomerates and is the reason it has the agility to do what it does.  It does it the same way the bigger companies do it.  But the ultimate reach through the broadcaster is the same - the end product is the same. The  Fortress of Freedom Corporation did not put the CTV show on the air, the More Vision Corporation  (and it's subsidiary) were the ones that put the show on the air.  The vast majority of movie/television/music productions are produced this way - just ask Sony.  But these articles are being attacked while the others are not, even though the principle and end result are the same.  This "is" prejudice (as used in the abstract sense).  Think about it.


 * Speaking of prejudice, I never said the OP was racist this is you other people connecting the dots. I was just making statements of fact.  I no more said the OP was racist than I no more said the OP was, for example, motivated by professional jealousy or a combination of both.


 * Donald Brasseur has the same physical distance from the production house that taped the show and the record company that sold his music and the advertising company that aired ads for the show on CIUT and put it on CTV. In the eyes of the law, government and the telecommunications regulators, the subject organization and the multinational media conglomerates are exactly the same.  The articles in the paper "The Fortress Newspaper" are just as valid for him as he has no prejudicial connection to it.  Funny how nobody wants to concentrate on Donald Brasseur.Tafyug (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think you would agree that companies like Canwest/Global are established as reliable sources.  As publicly-traded companies, their editorial procedures are transparent - and they are held responsible by their shareholders to maintain their ethics and journalistic integrity.  If the National Post reports on a story that has any shred of public interest, it is subsequently reported by countless other media outlets with their own independent fact-checking departments checking every detail.


 * To say that Fortress of Freedom, Inc. does not have complete control over the Fortress newspaper is highly questionable: The two companies share a website and a phone number. (All the companies share these contact details, as a matter of fact...) One of the phone numbers is the *home number* of the founder, M. Ali - the other is a cell phone, which we can fairly assume is his.  Having a cell phone number as the primary contact for your business does not detract from notability, but it makes me question the newspaper as a valid, reliable source for the other articles.  None of the companies has listed a verifiable street address for contact.  There is NO contact information for the UK office of any of the companies.  There is scarcely enough to prove the existence of these companies, let alone their reliability as sources.


 * As for Donald Brasseur - the burden here lies on the article's writers to provide proof of notability. It may be that there was a BBC or CBC interview or TV special from 15 years ago.  It may also be that I am the kid playing hockey on the back of the five dollar bill, but if I can't provide supporting evidence of any form, we have to assume I am not.  If you find any evidence of it, bring that information here, because it would go A LONG WAY to providing some justification why Mr. Brasseur should have an article.  -Addionne (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply.  First of all I thank you all for looking around that organization, as more people eye it and look for weakness, the better it seems to look around here.  First of all, the publicly  traded corporations are accountable to the shareholders for profitability more than anything else.  The journalists and editors have their opinions bought and sold by their paychecks and advertising dollars.  I don't trust anything they say.   The Fortress Paper is published and owned by a private corporation. If ownership was by sole-proprietorship then I would agree that company is the same as the individual that owns it and thus clearly self-published, that is the "why" of incorporation.  BTW, many of the largest papers in Canada are published by individuals.   The integrity of the paper is assured by the company giving full editorial control of  the paper to a non-profit journalist association where the Board of Directors and other matters are voted upon by the membership - membership of which is open to all regardless of race, creed, or color.   Journalists are not paid but report out of a sense of civic duty, Nobody or entity at that organization influences what any particular journalist reports.   The papers have zero advertising and thus will never have editorial influence on the journalists and editors.  As such, The Fortress Newspaper conforms most closely to the truest forms of journalistic integrity .  Money to pay for the paper comes from another corporation that archives journalist credentials mostly in the Third World for those journalists who's rights under Article 19 are not guaranteed in their country and could be revoked at any time. Other sources of money are from the membership dues and other small projects under group control.  The papers are printed cheapest way and are manually folded and collated by the membership to save costs.    This whole paper and journalist org was a business plan set up to deal with the vacuum ultimately being created by the loss of small time newspapers that is happening as we speak.  The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ are some of the oldest organizations which embraced the citizen journalist.  At a meeting with the Special Advisor to the Secretary General at The Canadian Commission for UNESCO,  IAIJ founder Maurice Ali and one of the directors (the mysterious person from the U.K. office who flew over for the meeting) were told that they were the first such organization they had ever dealt with.  As of this moment they are still in negotiations to become members with the Commission.  So they are breaking ground here.  As I said before, The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ conform, by their structure and philosophy, closest to the purist form of journalistic integrity and their citations should carry as much weight - if not more - than the big profit motivated newspapers.  For any students following this out there, these underfunded  papers of irregular publication  are your future and organizations such as Wikipedia are going to have to, sooner or later, set clear policy "and" accommodate newspaper organizations such as The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ. We may as well start that dialogue right here.

So yes, if I am to be the only one to fight for these articles, I am not going to look for other sources to validate them, I am going to take a stand and prove that the present sources are as good if not better than the usual suspect sources. I think that is the way the people at that organization would want it. As for the phone numbers and lack of address at the site, all that information is out there if you really look, or you could call and ask. They are small and proud of it, but have the influence and media access of billion dollar companies. I think that concept is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafyug (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Question. I  have a question for anyone versed in the workings of Wiki.  Realize that as much as I adore those articles I was involved with up for deletion, they are just eight out of a possible 3,500,000 in English Wiki.  That said, I am faced with the decision as to go ahead and try to lobby for change/amendment to what constitutes reliable sources and associated policies.  I  am still new here, but I suspect no matter what arguments are listed here, that the articles will be deleted (though these arguments could be used as reference points to a request to open discussion for possible policy amendments and changes).  This is because Wiki policy in this case will rule in the end, so it should be amendment of such policy/policies to prevent further problems with other articles.  If that is so:

Does the instigator for this change have to be the affected user account, or could this be handed off to another individual/individuals or organization?

Realize that my debating skills and mental abilities are too feeble to trust in such an undertaking, but I will try if that is the only way. Seeing that no "smoking gun" was found as yet to discredit the newspaper or journalist association, I feel they are good candidates to bring forth in such a discussion for change and amendment. Such changes would affect millions of articles and editors so I think maybe this is worth the effort.Tafyug (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I only noticed Thparkth's notice about the deletions today so I am a bit late to the discussion.   I started editing here after seeing one of the Tafyug articles show up in the search engine.  I think two of the above are mine.  I say keep but not strong keep as when I step back and look at the articles they are not in the best shape they could be in, but there seems to be indications for improvement if allowed to develop.  Certainly Donald Brasseur is salvageable, almost positive it is.  If you look at this clip (from Donald's televison show and yes it is a real TV show as I saw it)  http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv  you will see Donald Brasseur leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clippings. I should repeat that: He is leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clipping!  If he is still alive it should be a simple matter to note some of the newspapers and articles and replace The Fortress Newspaper and nefarious The Stump citations.  I am sure that article will meet Wikipedia standards.  As for the other articles, realize that what I see is an underfunded group of organizations populated by well meaning and intentioned people working free for altruistic purposes.  They have made some notable achievements and have staying power and probably the articles should be left with notability tags to try and save them and then be revisited a later date.  Certainly the articles deserve this as I continually come across law firms and real estate companies and investment companies masquerading as encyclopedic articles which should be deleted on the spot.Sprams (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally I am appalled at the over the top actions of two people on both sides of this debate. I see strong indications that both work in the television industry and that much of the ill thought out actions and insults arise because of this and are unbecoming and not in the best interests of the Wikipedia organization. This whole thing should and could have been handled in a better way. Oh, and Tafyug, save the Wiki world another day, you have more important things to do with your time. That is all I have to say.Sprams (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sprams, I must admit that out of all of these articles, Donald Brasseur is the one that I am least happy about having nominated for deletion. I think there is a good chance that notability could be established for him based on those press clippings - if the details of some of them could be added to the article. Thparkth (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.tvarchive.ca/database/16181/adrienne_clarkson_presents/episode_guide/ That is what I got from the stuff here before breakfast and I think there are seventeen more citations possible from what I have seen but would require a personal visit to get the clippings and examine them. Donald Brasseur is definately notable.
 * Reply: From the scrap book video I found a signed letter from Jack Marshall of the "New Musical Express"  returning some photos to Don and stating the article in the magazine, the page and the date of the publication and have used this as a reference.  One television segment in the above videos (CityTV_CBC) was a segment from "Adrienne Clarkson Presents" CBC (November 29, 1990) and is confirmed here:

Similarly, notability in a media company (certainly a record label) were notable performers and are one test of a record label's notability. This can be conferred by a notable performer under contract. In this case Donald Brasseur is signed to FOF Records through Fortress Of Freedom Inc. (Usually called the parent company) and all of his songs, published works, use of image and press clippings all of that is assigned ownership to the label to bring in royalties for the artist. So yes, the artist's notability can be used as notability to the record label that signs the performer. Because of this I have added outside notable citations for Donald Brasseur into the "FOF Records"/"Fortress Of Freedom" articles. A record label that has no artists of any notability rarely has any notability itself. By that reasoning I state that the article FOF Records/Fortress Of Freedom articles not be deleted.

By the same reasoning the Article "The Life And Times Of Donald "Boots" Brasseur" now that notability is established, now has outside evidence of notability to keep it from deletion as the TV show has a subject that is notable (I have also thrown it into the "Maurice Ali" article as it can only help). This is not the only evidence to support the articles. I am just addressing the criticism on "no" evidence of notability. A show about a non-notable person would probably be seen as not worthy of mention at Wickipedia but a show on the life of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan particularly if only one of a few - is notable due to the subject and worthy of a article of its own. Donald has been on at least seven TV shows and all the particulars of this show should not be merged to clutter up what will eventually be a very detained listing of his life experience. Expect the show to show up at the Library and Archives database in Canada sooner or later as it has been submitted and the show - by itself - is an important historical work worthy of an article in Wikipedia (particularly with regard to Protestant and Catholic blessing before a major battle which hardly was ever mentioned (if at all) in any Canadian war documentary to date).

With regard to the journalist association article (International Association Of Independent Journalists) out of the 17 journalist associations in its category, only six (which also includes IAIJ) have any citations or references. The larger more important associations have none and have been that way for years. Because notability or deletion tags have not been used in years (plenty of time to notice them) it can be said that in this narrow field of journalist associations, that the lack of notation is an endorsed policy on these associations and as such the IAIJ association should be kept on the site alongside them. Why is this so? Possibly because many journalists are also members of the few journalist associations and thus cannot improve the articles themselves due to COI. So for these associations its a dammed if you do and dammed it you don't situation and that may be the reason for a common lack of referencing.

Similarly for newspapers (regarding the article: The Fortress Newspaper). Unless that paper folded or is sold or sued or gets in some negative incident, other newspapers will not report about them. That is also specific to the industry and again journalists with a paper can not contribute to stories about the paper due to conflict of interests. So unless you are a huge paper with a colorful past you will have few notable citations. Most of the papers on Wikipedia fall into this class, no different from the citations for The Fortress Paper. This seems to be a policy endorsed by Wikipedia over the years by lack of deletion for papers with few citations in this narrow specific area of articles and The Fortress Newspaper article should therefore be allowed to stand alongside the others.

At the very least the articles for deletion here have only been around for a few weeks, were started by editors with no previous experience and as such should be given the opportunity to be allowed to develop over time amongst several different editors. Wikipedia has a scale for article development so this shows articles do not have to be in finished state to be included int the main space of the website. The philosophy of Wikipedia is to be inclusive and not exclusionary and we should be looking for articles to enhance the database and helping them along instead of searching for reasons to delete theme. On the strength of these arguments I once again as that the articles be kept.Sprams (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say this, and others may disagree, but I don't think this is yet enough to establish that Donald Brasseur is notable. The Adrienne Clarkson TV episode you mention is described as "Four Toronto cabbies who hope for show business careers — as a harpist, harmonica layer, punk singer and comic-painter". Assuming he is the harmonica player in question, this actually sounds like evidence for his non-notability. However if the NME is an in-depth report (not just a trivial mention) and if there are other similar reports in other sources, he is possibly notable. I'm not an expert in wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical acts, but WP:BAND is the target to aim for.
 * If we assume that Donald Brasseur is notable (which based on the evidence so far I do not accept), this does not in itself make his record label notable, or a documentary about him notable. Notability is not inherited. Nor is it sensible to add references to a British magazine article about a musician in the 1950s to attempt to establish notability for a Canadian corporation registered fifty years later.
 * Your remarks about other articles in the "journalism association" field having no references, and that this "is an endorsed policy on these associations" are addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Basically, if you feel those other articles aren't notable, and you can't find evidence of notability after a good faith search you are quite entitled to nominate them for deletion, just like any other editor. In any case, they are irrelevant to this discussion about these articles.
 * Thparkth (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your reply. As you can see we have our differences but Wikipedia has very elastic policies by design. Sometimes they need to be tested. And sometimes, my dear friend, it helps to step back and realize what this whole argument represents as this is not a competition, this is not what "you" think, but a consensus among a group. I am quite happy to defer to others on your nominations for deletion. I will tell you that I will not be nominating other articles of like citation because you have nominated these. I like to think of myself as a builder and creator and not a destroyer. I thank everyone for their contributions in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprams (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 November 2010 (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.