Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A racist message posted on a website shortly after 9-11 is not notable. Also the case in the second paragraph is under a deleted Law in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act - Section 13 was removed from the lawbooks by the Canadian Parliament Summer of 2013. The removal of the law cancels any claim of notability [1]. There is no other "notable" action attributed to this group other than making a single post. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it gets passing mentions in the media when mentioned with other white power groups. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure on this one yet. AfD #1 contains some of the typically sparse "keep its notable" votes typical of the Wiki-Prehistoric Era of 2007, but the nominator claim OF "The removal of the law cancels any claim of notability" is deflected by notability is not temporary. If it was indeed notable once, and it prompted legislation (since repealed) to be passed, there may be a case to be made for an article on that event and not the website itself. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. This organization suffers from the same problem as the completely unrelated organization SafeMinds, which I nominated for deletion a few weeks ago--namely, that while reliable sources mention it, they just mention it, they don't discuss it in depth, as LibStar pointed out. Might also consider salting. Jinkinson talk to me 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what Tarc said and per "The Canadian media described the tribunal's decision as a 'landmark ruling' on hate and the Internet." Landmark rulings are the stuff of which encyclopedic notability is made. Edison (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My initial reaction is the same as Tarc's. I certainly presume the nominator is acting in the good faith, but its a single purpose account aimed at removing coverage of this group.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. Unlike Milowent given the combination of the nominator's username and editing history, I can't help but see this as a bad-faith "scrubbing" attempt; a variation on WP:OWB #72 seems at play here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect The org seems to only have the notability of being a defendant in a landmark case, whereas the case itself is quite interesting but doesn't have an article. Perhaps Edison, Tarc, Milowent, and The Bushranger would be willing to accept a merge/redirect to an article about the case itself. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If such an article existed, then yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whether or not the case was interesting, the law has been deleted. The article then becomes prejudicial - like small-time charges where there was no conviction or a conviction that gets overturned. Overall the point is moot. In The Warman v. Lemire case - the Tribunal itself ruled that the entire Act was unconstitutional [2]. That was the last case to ever be prosecuted under Section 13 in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Using Wikipedia to further paint Richardson and Kulbashian (unrepresented defendants fighting an uphill battle) in an unconstitutional court/law is a bad faith move. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - By this logic, Prohibition in the United States should be deleted. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Prohibition was an era in US history that was full of events. This case was a shortcut to soiling someone's name when there was no REAL legal recourse. There was no criminal case. It was a back door to constitutional protections. Aside from the Kangaroo Court case, there were no other actions carried out by the website or its alleged operators. In fact, there is no REAL information to indicate that Kulbashian or Richardson were ever the actual operators of the site - All evidence was circumstantial and the respondents never took the stand according to the decision WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No information about this event being an actual group. CECT was a website run by 2 people. The decision was not landmark, under an unconstitutional Act where there was no right to a lawyer, no rules of evidence and 0% chance to win a case as a respondent [3]. The only landmark case under Section 13 would be a respondent who actually won. This is the reason the Canadian Parliament voted to kill the law a couple months ago. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator, your vote is presumed (I've struck the "delete"). You are writing as if you are someone with knowledge of the subject outside published sources, how are we really to know what the truth is, outside published sources? Many people have been wrongly convicted in history, that doesn't make them non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Aside from an Administrative court case which has since been scrapped, there are no other notable actions WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Canadian fascist group has RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in independently published sources. The landmark legal decision against their ISP adds to the notability case. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now Toronto is a free street corner trash-rag tabloid [4]. The website has received nothing more than passing mention anywhere. If the decision against their ISP is landmark (arguably for a kangaroo court), that deserves it's own page. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient referencing. If there were further developments in the case or its related law, that should be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (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.