Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine


 * 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   keep. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This seems to be a strange, undue coatrack article for a complaint, filed in multiple venues, that does not appear to rise to the level of notability requiring a separate article. (Although not necessarily relevant, it appears that all of the complaints were refused or dismissed.) The main Maclean's article seems to be able to cover the "controversy" sufficiently in a paragraph, making this article redundant, at best. jæs (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article is over-long it is well referenced to multiple WP:RS - the fact that they have noted it establishes notability for me! Article doesn't read as a coatrack - seems to give reasonable balance to both sides and does not stray from main topic. Expands on material available at Maclean's. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequately supported by many reliable sources, thus presumed to be notable. The article does not recapitulate mundane news coverage in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, but presents a serious issue, occurring over multiple years. Chester Markel (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - just the sort of stuff that ends up at WP:ODD. Here again is an article that is extremely well-sourced, if downright weird, but is also obviously notable. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As demonstarted in the article, this case was a major issue across Canada regarding Freedom of Speech and Canada's Human Rights Commissions. It is certainly notable enough to justify it having its own article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 December 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.