Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-City Skins

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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but allegations of canvassing here and here are somewhat troubling. — Scientizzle 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City Skins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable website. The article alleges that this website was run by two individuals of questionable notability. There is no evidence that the claims that this website was run by these individuals is true. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, only two out of the five reference work in this poorly written article and in the two sources that does work, the website is not the subject of the article. Moreover, the website is now defunct. Also, we should be very careful about WP:BLP with the unsourced claims made in this article. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, defunct NN website. Fails WP:N miserably meshach 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A significant group and a landmark court case which focused on the limits of free speech on the Internet. I have to wonder if people actually looked at the sources here and in the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team entries before nominating this for deletion? AnnieHall 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly, most of your sources do not work and the few that do work do not sufficiently support your claims of notability. Secondly, this had miniscule reference to the case that you are referring to and that case was not a landmark case as Zundel v. Citron (2002) was the landmark case. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The sources that were listed worked at the time they were added. Am I at fault because I haven't been babysitting the article? And I'm afraid it is a significant legal decision that has had an impact on the Canadian right. AnnieHall 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you asked whether I "actually looked at the sources here" and I responded no, they don't work. You might consider citing the sources properly, that way other people know what the sources are and you won't need to babysit the article. Consider reading WP:CITE#HOW. And the case you are talking about is irrelevant to this website or group (if such a group even exists). The ruling found no conclusive connection to the site with either of the accused and found no conclusive evidence of a group called tri-city skins. If anything the case you are talking about confirms the non-notability of the subject matter. Pocopocopocopoco 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't ask if you looked at the sources. I had stated that at the time they worked properly. And this was one of the first articles that I created here so you'll forgive me that, at the time, I was uncertain of exactly how to cite the sources. The sources listed below by Will Beback could be included as references to back up the article. AnnieHall 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a website, it's a former white power group. The proper notability guide is WP:ORG. This groups has been the subject of articles:
  • "SKINHEADS ON THE MARCH"
  • "Rights tribunal launches probe into 'vile' websites" Shannon Proudfoot. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Sep 2, 2004. pg. A.8 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your first source (Now Magazine) does not qualify under WP:RS and the article is written in a gossipy style. Your second source does not establish this to be a group but a website. And it has brief mention in that article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why doesn't NOW Magazine count? It does not appear to be self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Now_Magazine is basically a tabloid focusing on entertainment and a big portion of it is just sex adds. I don't have a problem with that but I seriously doubt they can be considered a reliable source for this subject matter. Pocopocopocopoco 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also note that the nominator seems to have duplicated the AfD for Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team without giving consideration to each individually. Any unsourced BLP issues should simply be removed from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is patently false. Please re-read the statements I have made in the AFDs. Also, since these websites are of questionable notability, we can also delete the articles in order to deal with BLP issues. If we removed the unsourced statements from this article, there would be very little left in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - definitely notable and well sourced, don't even understand the AFD. Seems like some people are just bored and AFD things these days. --Mista-X 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A significant group with a well-documented history. CJCurrie 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Everyone in this AFD indicating that we should keep this article has been canvassed by user:AnnieHall. Eventhough she has not explicity directed the users how to vote, she has only canvassed users who agree with her not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her in the past. This should be taken into account by the closer of this AFD. I also believe that WP:COAT applies to this article as this article attempts to give excessive focus to the articles Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson which are of nominal notability. Pocopocopocopoco 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would AnnieHall know how I would vote? All she knows is that I have edited articles related to far-right groups before. That indicates that I have an interest in the subject, and therefore may be better placed than some other editors to comment on whether this article should be kept or not. Indeed, if you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that it is about an organization. Your nomination is based on the incorrect belief that it is about a website. Ground Zero | t 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a very very large editing history and I'm not going to comb through at this point in time, however what is obvious is that she has not canvassed anyone who has disagreed with her views in the past on these types of issues (you can find these users in the Category:Canadian_far-right_figures) and she has canvassed many people who she has canvassed before and they have canvassed her and they have tag-teamed in the past on these AFD discussions. For example [1] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merle_Terlesky. Many of the users in that AFD are also in this one and they voted the same way. In terms of the subject being a group and not a website, there is no evidence of this whatsoever and the 2006 case the 'keep'ers are referring to said that it was not established that tri-city was a group. If it is a group, it is even far less notable than the website. Pocopocopocopoco 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Not true at all. In fact I asked for the input of user Dogmatic, a person with whom I've had numerous disagreements with concering articles on the Canadian far right. The individuals I contacted are ones I know have an interest in and knowledge of these groups and individuals. AnnieHall 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One inactive user doesn't count. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What are you talking about? The user in question isn't inactive. He might not have made any edits for some time but he is still someone who has a history with these articles. And who are you to determine what does and doesn't count? What arrogance! AnnieHall 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • He hasn't editted in over 5 months hence he is inactive. I would also advise you of the policy against personal attacks. Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Personal attacks? You've got to be kidding me! AnnieHall 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have challenged the validity of my vote on the basis that she made me aware of the AfD even though you admit you haven't looked at how I have voted in the past. As I noted, I believe that she alerted me to this vote because I have edited articles on far-right groups before. I do not believe that there has been any previous occasion on which I have voted on article she was trying to defend. I did not vote on Merle Terlesky You are not assuming good faith here. Quite the opposite: you are assuming bad faith. Ground Zero | t 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, see my edit above. I have not assumed any bad faith in your edit, the canvasser is at fault and not the canvassee. Pocopocopocopoco 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But you did assume bad faith in my case. My message was open, non-biased, neutral, limited, and not limited to only editors whom I have agreed with in the past. I would ask this user to please assume good faith. Thank you. AnnieHall 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't try to turn this back on me. You clearly canvassed and you admitted that you have a history of canvassing as well. [2] I reiterate that the closer of this AFD should take this into account. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I did not admit to canvassing in the past though I did admit that I should have worded my comments more carefully because they could be interpreted as such even though that wasn't what I had intended. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of taking snipits to try and prove something. So then I can assume that you're not going to assume good faith? Nice. AnnieHall 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Rather than sparring with me about good faith. Why don't you assume the assumption of good faith and deal with my valid concerns I believe I have made about vote stacking in this AFD? Pocopocopocopoco 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am an editor of long standing at Wikipedia, and have been elected as an administrator. I resent having the validity of my opinion about an AfD challenged on the basis that the AfD was brought to my attention by another editor. You have not presented sufficient evidence of vote-stacking to make this claim stick. Ground Zero | t 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How can I assume good faith when you continue to claim that I was vote stacking inspite of all the evidence to the contrary? I would much rather deal with the merits of your argument concerning the article than this dog and poney show but as long as you claim that I was canvassing I will continue to defend myself. AnnieHall 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team. This organisation is notable and backed by reliable sources, but since there seems to be so much crossover with the CECT group I think we would be better served by having one article to cover both. Terraxos 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is that they are two distinct groups inspite of the links. AnnieHall 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just add whatever sourced information there is from this article, if any, to the articles of Alex Kulbashian and James Scott Richardson (if it already isn't there) and delete this article, as this article seems very coatish. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is certainly a notable group. Black as pitch 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe user:AnnieHall needs to explain the following: An AFD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Canada_for_Us occurred a month ago. This article is another article that user:AnnieHall created and it is also a white supremacist hate group. That group is more notable than this one. As mentioned, everyone voting 'Keep' in this AFD was canvassed by user:AnnieHall except user:Black as pitch and everyone voting 'keep' in this AFD except user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch voted 'keep' for the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. user:Ground Zero and user:Black as pitch did not vote at all in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD. Note also that one of the comments in that AFD criticized user:AnnieHall for canvassing.[3] My question is why did she not simply canvass the entire list of people who voted in that AFD since its a similar AFD and it occurred fairly recently? She choose instead a seemingly arbitrary list which seems to all have voted the way she wants. I ask this question in good faith to everyone involved. Pocopocopocopoco 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelieveable. I don't think that I need to explain anything, but since you asked. As I've said before, I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article. And yes I was admonished for canvassing however as I've already stated it was NOT my intent, though how I worded my request could have created the impression. As such when I contacted users regarding this and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team articles I was very careful about how I worded my request that they look at the article. And while you say you are asking this question in good faith, it strikes me as a bit passive aggressive. Since it doesn't look like an apology from you will be forthcoming regarding your accusation, then I think it best that I stop commenting directly or indirectly on your writing and focus solely on the merits of the article. You may have noticed that I made some changes to it (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) so perhaps that will indicate notability more effectively for you. AnnieHall 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't need to apologize for trying to ensure fair AFD's. You said "I contacted editors that I knew had an interest in and knowledge of the far right in Canada and who could offer informed input on the article" but why wouldn't this simply be the users who had participated in the Western_Canada_for_Us AFD? Like I mentioned, the subject matter is similar and that AFD occurred recently. Pocopocopocopoco 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously an article which speaks volumes on unfortunate acts of organized hate activity in southern Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This group was a very notable neo-Nazi group; those who follow and monitor this type of activity know that, and those who don't may have read about them in the newspaper. The Tri-City skins members who are no longer associated with this group have moved on to various other neo-Nazi groups. I highly recommend that we keep this article as it serves good purpose and they meet the notability guide. --Eternalsleeper 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a noted group unfortunately. Wikipedia is not an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I thank user:Spylab, user:AnnieHall and others for their recent edits to the article. Despite still having some questionable sources, it looks much better now. However, I still believe it should be deleted for lack of notability (and I sympathize with the editors for there hard work). The reason is that the Warman v. Kulbashian Decision in paragraphs 125-132 clearly states that there is no evidence that Tri-City skins was anything more than a domain name. I believe this is the kiss of death in terms of notability. Pocopocopocopoco 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to be a well sourced article which proves notability.--Yahel Guhan 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing has improved a lot since the start of the AFD but it is still far from being called well sourced. I already expressed my concerns with using NOW magazine. Secondly, the B'nai Brith article is written in an editorial style. Pocopocopocopoco 04:13, 30 October 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.