Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Heritage Alliance

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 after several hours and 0 delete statements this is being speedy kept per WP:SNOW. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Alliance

This article was originally speedy deleted on 30 March because of BLP concerns. A DRV consensus overturned, saying WP:V questions for articles on organizations are best evaluated at AfD. The version now present is the originally-deleted, expansive one. An alternative, stubbed from exists in the edit history at 12 April for consideration also. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. Lexis-nexis produces a couple dozen stories in Canadian newspapers about Ms. Guille and the CHA, mostly the London Free Press and Kitchener Record--both serious, non-trivial publications. Most of the stories describe Ms.Guille as the group's leader, founder, and/or spokesperson, as well as characterizing the group as being white supremist (or sim.) Bucketsofg 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be possible to source all of the specific points--and indeed it is necessary, or they will have to be removed during editing. DGG 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and improve. If we have to remove certain details due to BLP concerns, then so be it ... but deletion would be an absolute overreaction. CJCurrie 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some improvements (many of the external links are dead, for example) but like the Marc Lemire article there's a lot of good information there already. AnnieHall 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per buckets. Ground Zero | t 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with sourced material. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up of all unattributed political epithets (doing in now).`'mikka 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several references in the article, and more available.Spylab 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything sourced to this site should be removed from the article. The slogan of the site is thoughts and rants from the inside out. That does not pass WP:RS. Just look at their submission policy. If this is kept, anything sourced there needs to go. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article. Acalamari 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion one way or the other on the significance of this group, but I find "keep and improve" a bit hollow without the backup of actually adding credible independent sources to the article. I have just removed a bunch of claims which are unsourced and vehemently denied by Guille, it would be good if we could make this an article about CHA rather than an attack on Meilssa Guille. And preferably an article backed by neutral independent sources. The British National Party is an extremist group in the UK, the article on them is, for the most part, pretty good, because they have attracted sufficient attention that there is critical review from major newspapers across the political spectrum. Here all we seem to have is some trivial mentions fomr people who basically disapprove of the group on principle. As, of course, do I, being a liberal Brit, but that's not the point: we need to make an article which, if it must be harsh, is harsh but fair. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bucketsofg, but only if the citations to the London Free Press and Kitchener Record are restored. It's unclear from looking at the restored history whether material cited to those publications was removed (which it sounds like it should not have been), or whether nothing was actually cited to them. Can someone clear that up? --MCB 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We have the London Free Press cited for the fact that Richard Warman describes the CHA website as "a collection of material that encourages vicious attacks on the Arab, Jewish and black communities." Without the full text I have no idea whtehr this is a passing mention, a para in respect of another story, whether Warman is the kind of guy who takes action against hundreds opf websites, most of which actions fail, or what. Lack of context thus far, still digging. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could email you the articles, if you want. CJCurrie 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'd be interested to find out what the real story is some time. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Never heard of the group or the lady in question but after a few searches I'm satisfied as far as notability goes. As for the nom, well as the article stands now, there should be no complaints about BLP violations as there's virtually no content left. Right now, it barely even qualifies as a stub. As I said, I don't know anything about the subject and don't really care to change that fact, but unless some adequately sourced material is added we might just as well delete the article. I'm voting keep since I don't see a good reason for deleting it but there really isn't any point in keeping a stub around if there's no way to actually turn it into a useful article. -- Seed 2.0 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is sufficient evidence to support all facts stated in this article. If people don't want to end up on Wikipedia they shouldn't associate with Hate groups in the first place. Knowing is half the battle against ignorance; the other half is acting, hence this vote. Apatride 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but be careful about BLP. If that means having a stubby article, let's have a stubby article, because stubs are still useful. CWC 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.