Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - Philippe 19:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization. Entire article is sourced to the organization's own documents, or non-critical, non-reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This organization also appears to be a major source of linkspam, perhaps an orchestrated public relations campaign. In addition to deleting this article, the following links may need to be removed. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WT:WPSPAM
 * Keep. I added some references, including two reviews of the site and two newspaper articles which quote Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. As well, this review by the Apologetics Index (already mentioned in the article) is critical of the site. --Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well. Let's discuss these references:
 * I do not see how these establish notability. The first two require payment, so I could not check them.  The last two are mere passing mentions.  They are not articles about the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.  Being quoted or mentioned here and there does not necessarily establish notability. Jehochman Talk 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first two, the previews ought to be sufficient to confirm that the OCRT's website was reviewed by reliable sources. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is as much about the website as the organization, so a review of the site is directly talking about the subject of the article. AccessMyLibrary.com pages can be accessed free of charge if you have a library card from a participating library. The paganism articles both quote OCRT, indicating that two newspapers regard OCRT and its website as a reliable source of information. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, it is not required that reliable sources have free online archives. That you can't find a way to read them easily for free is irrelevant. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Warning: the above comment is a strawman argument. I said, "The first two require payment, so I could not check them," which means I could not check them, not that they are invalid. Eastmain, did you actually read the articles, or just the summaries? Jehochman Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable group doing notable things. I remember they were cited in a large number of news articles in the late 90s and there were articles written about them. COI: I've had very negative personal interactions with one of the founders in the context of the organization.  Hobit (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The group's activities seem to have been reviewed by enough independent sources to pass the threshold for notability for organizations. That said, the article appears to need substantial clean-up and additional sourcing, and careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues. In general, content about social impact, importance, controversies, criticisms, etc. particularly needs to be sourced to independent sources. Sourcing it to the organization's own sources tends to result in highlighting the organization's own point of view on these matters. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; organization (however small) that operates a fairly well-known and oft talked about website - less so these days than hitherto, sure, but that doesn't change anything. They are, indeed, a poor SOURCE for Wikipedia articles and most references to them should be replaced with something better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is so well known, where is the coverage by independent sources? All I have seen thus far is a few passing mentions, and a ton of linkspam.  Why is it a well-known website? Can you provide a reason, not just an assertion? Tell me please, how did this tiny organization get 1045 external links from the English Wikipedia?  There was clearly an organized linkspam campaign going on here.  Who did this, and why? Jehochman Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well have been inappropriately linked in most or all of those cases, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted as punishment. The notability of subjects is a separate question from the behavior of Wikipedia editors. We wouldn't want opponents of organizations to start linkspam campaigns in hopes of getting the organization's article deleted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, there is a high correlation between linkspamming and creation of articles about non-notable entities.  I brought this article to AfD because I thought it needed close scrutiny.  My own evaluation is that this web site is not notable.  It's Google PageRank is only 4, as displayed on the toolbar.  Most notable websites have a PageRank of 6 - 10. That's a redflag to me. A second red flag is that the article was almost entirely sourced to the organization's own website.  Whether this discussion results in keep or delete, there is value in bringing attention to these problems. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The group's activities seem to have been reviewed by enough independent sources to pass the threshold for notability for organizations. That said, the article appears to need substantial clean-up and additional sourcing, and careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues. In general, content about social impact, importance, controversies, criticisms, etc. particularly needs to be sourced to independent sources. Sourcing it to the organization's own sources tends to result in highlighting the organization's own point of view on these matters. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; organization (however small) that operates a fairly well-known and oft talked about website - less so these days than hitherto, sure, but that doesn't change anything. They are, indeed, a poor SOURCE for Wikipedia articles and most references to them should be replaced with something better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is so well known, where is the coverage by independent sources? All I have seen thus far is a few passing mentions, and a ton of linkspam.  Why is it a well-known website? Can you provide a reason, not just an assertion? Tell me please, how did this tiny organization get 1045 external links from the English Wikipedia?  There was clearly an organized linkspam campaign going on here.  Who did this, and why? Jehochman Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well have been inappropriately linked in most or all of those cases, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted as punishment. The notability of subjects is a separate question from the behavior of Wikipedia editors. We wouldn't want opponents of organizations to start linkspam campaigns in hopes of getting the organization's article deleted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, there is a high correlation between linkspamming and creation of articles about non-notable entities.  I brought this article to AfD because I thought it needed close scrutiny.  My own evaluation is that this web site is not notable.  It's Google PageRank is only 4, as displayed on the toolbar.  Most notable websites have a PageRank of 6 - 10. That's a redflag to me. A second red flag is that the article was almost entirely sourced to the organization's own website.  Whether this discussion results in keep or delete, there is value in bringing attention to these problems. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 8 July 2008 (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.