Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Cross Army

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:SNOW, WP:NPA Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Cross Army[edit]

White Cross Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unexplained removal of PROD tag. Does not meet WP:NORG - "A company, corporation, organisation, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organisation". Delete AusLondonder (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per [1], [2] etc. and per [3] NYT coverage, [4] more NYT coverage, and even more NYT coverage if one looks. Not to mention over fifty book sources. This is a bit past "only one source" as far as I can tell, and I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular. Collect (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is to my mind a clearly notable organisation have added another ref.... and more can be found. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
A small number of mentions does not make for notability. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when The New York Times covers an organization multiple times, it is considered significant coverage by a major reliable source. If you wish to demur that the NYT meets WP:RS I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N. Collect (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those wondering how, instantaneously, editors are out defending this organisation (and not the many others at AFD) - Eric Corbett was the creator. The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effing Bosh and Twaddle I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Corbett, and you aspersions do not belong on any talk page whatsoever on Wikipedia. I suggest you strike your aspersions forthwith. Collect (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Collect - then how did you get here so quickly and why did you state "I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular". Also, I was referring especially to the editor who removed the PROD without comment within seconds AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um - perhaps you did not know my Watchlist is now about 4,500 pages in size? After removing several thousand entries. That is how I got here "so quickly." I had noted posts at UT:JW and other places, especially where a large number of AfDs were recently made for women who actually meet GNG. I have no idea who dePRODded the page, nor does it make a whit of difference to this discussion. The organization clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines as being notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Definitely a Keeper: A simple GBooks search yields multiple RS page after page. And please let's not politicise this AfD, any further than it already is, by attaching blame to the keep votes based on alleged connections to Eric. The RS speak for themselves. No need for ad-Eric arguments. Dr. K. 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are almost 400 articles in the British Newspaper Archive about this organisation, many of which appear to be reports of meetings around the UK. Unfortunately my subscription has just run out so I can't read them. If you post a proposed deletion notice on a talk page that has attracted over 9,000 hits in the last month it's not surprising if it attracts some interest. Perhaps the proposer should read the sentence in the template they posted above about assuming good faith. Richerman (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Talking about the template, I'm still waiting for the SPAs and the external website referrals. Not to mention the brand-new accounts who need guidance how to sign their posts. Dr. K. 01:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any recent AFD I have participated in I have not seen such interest. Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what your template says. You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word. Dr. K. 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so you literally cannot read? Or do you just enjoy making people explain things to you? Perhaps explains why you support keeping this article. However, the template says "If you came here because someone asked you to...please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. They are the points I emphasise. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to become so belligerent. These things you bolded do not apply to me in any way, shape or form. Neither does the other nonsense about external websites or newbie SPAs. What applies here however is your WP:SNOW AfD recklessness which is exacerbated by your refusal to understand how badly wrong you were and to withdraw this spurious AfD. Further, you post this notice on one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia and then you try to play ignorant why people come in droves to support this SNOW-keep article? Please find something more constructive to do here than attack editors trying to save this worthy article. Unlike your attacks against me, I assume you can read. Have you read what I wrote about Google Books searches? Why don't you try and do a GBooks search and see page after page of RS coverage? Did you read what I wrote in my keep !vote? Dr. K. 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You became belligerent first, writing sarcastically "You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word". I am not referring to sockpuppets, as I've already said. I have acted in good faith. No requirement exists to notify creators about AFD's. I did despite knowing Corbett's talkpage is highly watched (and he has quite a few strong supporters) AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". It was a measured response to your crass insinuation: Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is.. As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. Please do a GBooks search. And stop badgering the editors who !vote keep. It is the duty of each and every Wikipedian to support notable articles. Dr. K. 02:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". I know you are keen to defend Eric "please stop the...ad-Eric arguments" but I didn't nominate if because of him. What you call badgering other editors call deletion discussions. Since you take your "duty" so seriously, how often do you participate in deletion discussions? AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are keen to defend Eric Can you provide a diff to support this nonsense? I'll take care of your other nonsense when you address this point first. Dr. K. 02:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diff AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that when I said: As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. it was because I was keen to defend Eric. This is a gross misrepresentation. I responded this way because you continuously allege that editors came here because they are friends of Eric. Not because I am keen to defend Eric.. I quote your words from above: The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. Do you fail to see this is an ad-hominem, ad-Eric argument? Are you in denial or have you just forgotten? Dr. K. 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this AFD should also be a warning to new article creators of the problems with creating basically unsourced crap articles (because you devote most of your time on Wikipedia to being a prick). Also, very few of these sources give "significant coverage" but don't let that worry anyone. Let's just scrap notability guidelines if they will be ignored en masse when it suits. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nearly all. Clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe article clearly doesn't meet the specified criteria for deletion; comments by the proposer ooze ill-will towards Eric Corbett and those who vote “keep” for an article that happens to have been created by him; and only a half-wit could fail to notice the timing here, considering that EC is the primary target in concurrent Arbcom shenanigans. This shabby AFD has all the credibility of a transparently vexatious litigation. Writegeist (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point, that Corbett has plenty of defenders and friends on this site. How he has got away with his battleground behaviour for so long is patently clear from this AFD. I was acting in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that’s been proved here is that six experienced editors (six — The Corbett Defense League out in force? Really?) see no merit in your nomination; rather, they have seen right through it. Here are two sentences you put together elsewhere (I mean, not on such as WO but here on WP) about a user other than EC; with two words changed, they aptly frame my view of what you’ve been up to here: I think you acted in bad faith and showed a serious lack of competence. I view it as worse coming from an experienced editor. Writegeist (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was by now expecting the first waves of SPA accounts, newbies with no signing skills, and those referred to this AfD by external websites. But so far I see only veteran editors !voting keep. I really wonder about the usefulness of that template. Dr. K. 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this, so for you to make these smart arse comments shows you are not acting in good faith here. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would consider withdrawing this nom. Again, however, I have always acted in good faith. I find the personal attacks on me non-constructive and rather telling. AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, I am here randomly, as in 99% of AfDs I comment on. Secondly, I'm probably a fool for getting involved considering all the personal attacks made here already. But, this does in fact appear to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Blatantly meets notability. I removed the PROD; AusLondonder, for your future reference there is no requirement for a reason for PROD removal to be given - read the template. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been attacked for removing PRODs. Removing a PROD means you object even if it is just because you object (of course removing them just to be disruptive is wrong). VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Cross_Army&oldid=1138724617"