Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canada for Us


 * 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. As a side point, I'm unsure why someone added the template, as there were no anonymous IPs or suspicious SPAs participating in the discussion; all of those participating were established users. WaltonOne 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Canada for Us

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Short-lived (less than six months) white nationalist group. Notability is not inherited, the links to prominent neo-nazis does not compensate for the lack of independent sources or evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not an "independent source?" CTV is not an, "independent source?" AnnieHall 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It was founded in "early 2004. The WCFU was formally dissolved on May 11, 2004, . . . ." That can't be but a few days more than four months. --Evb-wiki 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the amount of time an organization existed have to do with anything? When Nicolas II was deposed the provisional government lasted only a few months. Does the provisional government not warrant mention because it didn't last long (note that I'm NOT saying that the Kerensky government is as important as a neo-nazi group in Alberta -- it's obviously far more significant -- but to say that the time frame should dictate importance is ridiculous)? AnnieHall 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All of the many sources mention the group by name. Longevity does not confer notability, nor does the lack of it make a group non-notable. The group meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG by having multiple 3rd party mentions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, . . . is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. . . . The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. . . . Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." WCFU was not the subject of any of the sources. Merely trivially mentioned. From WP:ORG: "The organization’s longevity . . . or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." --Evb-wiki 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG also says, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I think that the multiple sources indicate notability. While longevity may be considered, it is not a determinant.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe the group has been the subject of articles. For example, "Edmonton man fined for hate-propaganda site", The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 2, 2006. AnnieHall has added more sources to the article as well.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added to that, references 5 and 6 are focused specifically on the WCFU. AnnieHall 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I get the distinct impression that, having failed to achieve notability at the time, the WCFU are trying to achieve it through Wikipedia now... Marcus22 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote the article and I am most decidedly NOT a member or supporter of the WCFU. This group was publicized in major media in Canada (CBC and CTV, as well as a national radio programme that interviewed the leader). It meets the criteria for inclusion based on that fact alone. Add to that the leader and founder's arrest as a result of his activities with the WCFU. AnnieHall 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, please refrain from being abusive to people on their talk pages. Marcus22 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Abusive? How in the world was I being abusive? This is what I posted: I wrote the article in question and I do not appreciate your speculation regarding its inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. That you think it should be deleted is fine (though I don't at all agree) and we could agree to disagree but please do not make the claim (implicit) about me that you did: "having failed to achieve notability at the time, the WCFU are trying to achieve it through Wikipedia now." I consider this to be insulting so I would ask that you please refrain from jumping to conclusions concerning the motivation of editors. Thank you in advance. AnnieHall 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) What part of that was abusive? I just want you to afford me the courtesy and assume good faith as I would you. AnnieHall 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know when, if you lean over your neighbours fence, and start shouting at them, you are being abusive? Well, when you do the same thing on a talk page - it's still being abusive. In this case you saw what you thought was implicit in what I said.  You could have asked me if I had meant it.  In a nice way.  And in a nice way, I could have said no, I did not mean to imply that.  (For I did not).  Instead of which you hung over the fence and ranted at me.  That's abusive.  OK?  Marcus22 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly a rant and given how I interpreted what you posted (and I'm not sure others wouldn't make a similar asumption based upon what was written) I think I was being nice. Be that as it may I'll accept that you did not intend to cause offense. Thank you for that. AnnieHall 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Annie, please also note that your canvassing activity in reference to this article is a violation of the AfD rules. --Evb-wiki 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't canvassing. I did not ask anyone to vote a specific way. I simply asked if I could get their input on this issue, much like Guy when he contacted me to let me know he had nominated the article for deletion. AnnieHall 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep not a pretty part of history, but the fact that a hate group was forced into folding up so quickly is the notability in this case. Well referenced + plenty of notable linked articles. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously per WP:ORG. Eusebeus 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP All of the many sources mention the group by name. Longevity does not confer notability, nor does the lack of it make a group non-notable. The group meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG by having multiple 3rd party mentions. It was one of the more active and open white supremacist groups in Canada in recent history, and the events which led to its downfall had a ripple effect on the movement in Canada in general. Frank Pais 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One point: It looks like the article will probably be kept, as there is sufficient support for it. But could anyone who has had their view canvassed on this subject please do the decent thing and withdraw any vote they may have made?  Thankyou.  Marcus22 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe the organization was quickly disbanded, but there were, and still are, racists who get together with dreams of "taking back" something that they think of as "their country".  You don't suppose that all of those white supremacists decided to become more tolerant of diversity after their leader was arrested, do you?  I'd say that the Alberta Provincial Police are still waiting for this U-boat to resurface.  Mandsford 14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that their website was shut down for hate makes it notable to those interested in the topics of Canadian Law, Hate, the internet, speech, politics, ect. Wiki is not paper. --Mista-X 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for an article. CJCurrie 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A short-lived (and unpleasant) group, but a clearly notable one in my view, given that they were fined (and may be prosecuted) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for breaking human rights laws. The references attest to the fact that they have been the subject of multiple independent news sources. Terraxos 16:16, 19 September 2007 (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.