Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineau Park Protection Committee

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: see also WP:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park, which seems to involve the same editor and seems to share COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.


 * They are not only incidental media references. The groups were usually behind breaking the news--such as disclosing a planned residential development inside Gatineau Park; such as revealing the NCC has mislead the public over the history of Gatineau Park, etc.


 * And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?
 * by Wikipedia's definition, specifically this part.  PK  T (alk)  00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related New Woodlands Preservation League and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.


 * And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and for the other reasons given. The article Politics of Gatineau Park should go the same way unless it can be brought within the scope of wikipedia which looks unlikely. -- KenWalker | Talk 02:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment: as mentioned above, I have asked the same admin to review Politics of Gatineau Park as well and make recommendations. In the meantime edits to that article or comments on its talk page are welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment if there are secondary sources that are french language publications and the park is located in Quebec, would this article find a happier home on French Wikipedia? Is there such an article already, but we don't link to it?  I found the French article on Gatineau Park, but it does not appear to link to a French verison of the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, Politics of Gatineau Park or New Woodlands Preservation League.  I wonder if the creation of an English language folk is insulating the three articles from the scrutiny of French-speaking editors that may have more expertise on the subject than we do.  (In theory, if I wanted to write a POV fork on the New York Yankees, I would have more luck posting the POV content fork on a French or Dutch wikipedia than on the English wikipedia.)


 * I don't understand how User:Stoneacres can list all of these references above, but not work them into the article in a meaningful way. Nor have I been able to determine whether these are independent, third party reliable sources. Do these news stories cover the NWPL or GPPC or merely provide an incidental reference? Racepacket (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have found many of those refs listed above and the ones I have found contain only a mention of the organization name while discussing other topics, such as development in the park, highway construction, etc. As User:Stoneacres mentions at Talk:New_Woodlands_Preservation_League, some of the articles don't even mention the GPPC or NWPL, but quote the two individuals who are members of the organizations. He says: "All articles quoting Messrs. Murray and McDermott on Gatineau Park are to be taken as articles on NWPL/GPPC, since they were acting in their capacity as members of those organizations." - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahunt is being dishonest. The great majority of those articles cover issues that were brought to the media's attention by the League/GPPC and wouldn't exist without those groups. We have shone the ligth on the darkness of the NCC's management of Gatineau Park. They clearly chronicle the League/GPPC's activities, and testify beyond the shadow of a doubt to their notability precisely in accordance with Wikipedia's rules.


 * Funny how Ahunt dismisses those articles without having read every one of them. Go ahead and be dishonest, and lead your little wiki lynchmob. Go ahead and destroy knowledge.--Stoneacres (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Stoneacres: Rather than slinging insults around, please read WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommendations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahunt's manic-depressive, martial law behaviour is what's insulting. Perhaps he should read Wikipedia's rules on trying to "out" somebody. It's clear Ahunt created both the GPPC/NWPL sites to out its members. Reading the Gatineau Park/Politics of Gatineau Park articles confirms he baited a member of that organization--ordering him, among other things, to produce the name of a GPPC member quoted in the press, although that name was widely available.


 * And now that he thinks he's outed them, he speciously contends that they are not notable, because they are an informal organization. In total disregard for the overwhelming evidence that they have pretty much set the agenda on the park file over the last 6 years, he suggests the sites be deleted.


 * You're not in the army anymore private. Time you started acting like a civilian. Talking to a shrink might help you with your obsessive need to give orders and be in control.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Stoneacres, thank you for giving me credit for starting this article and Gatineau Park Protection Committee, but if you check the records here and here, you will see that actually you started both those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Organization fails WP's notability guidelines. Article's purpose is a soapbox, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.  PK T (alk)  02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - concur that this article is being used as a soapbox -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (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.