Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for a Canadian Republic

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 no consensus towards merge. Seems to me like it's between the merge and the deletes. Many of the sources I noticed was passing mentions. It's enough to warrenty a merge somewhere but just not enough for a own individual article. I'll let the merge be discussed on the talk page. Right now there isn't any consensus here. Secret account 14:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for a Canadian Republic[edit]

Citizens for a Canadian Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is barely referenced and it has been around for awhile and yet there are no references from "reliable third-party sources). Until I came across this page, I never even heard of it. I have since been doing some research and still there is not much information (there is barely no mention of this org in my home province of Quebec or in francophone publications). There appears only be some protests associated with this organization. In my opinion WP:N is not being fulfilled here. My suggestion is to delete and move all pertinent verifiable info (not much) to Republicanism in Canada, which itself is written like an essay and is also barely referenced. To note, a member of this organizations executive committee [1] User:J.J. created an article for himself J.J. McCullough and has edited the vanity page for his website, Filibuster Cartoons. He is in my opinion definitely not notable. He also originally created this article [2] which is a definitely conflict of interest. In my opinion the user in question should be sanctioned for creating all these useless articles and wasting peoples time and energy. Laval (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've leaned towards keeping. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is like comparing apples to oranges. The history is easy to research as I have done right now. Monarchist League is an old organization, founded 1970, the guy who started it was a disciple of John Diefenbaker, a Prime Minister of Canada. They have connections to the Canadian monarchy and Rideau Hall (Governor General) and pro-monarchy politicians. They regularly invite members of the royal family to events and they are tied to the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces and so on. They have been involved in public policy debates and have had communications with Prime Ministers (most recently Stephen Harper) and successfully challenged the federal governments attempt to change the Oath of Citizenship. So there is a long and turbulent history here with the Monarchist League. "Citizens for a Canadian Republic" was started in 2002 by a person of no notability and has achieved nothing notable. And again, there are no reliable 3rd-party sources. Notability cannot be established. And its article was started by a member of its own executive committee (User:J.J.) who also created a self-serving article for himself. See conflict of interest. Laval (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete There are a few mentions such as here but they seem mainly trivial or in passing to me. All the google news hits simply use them as a passing example of Canadian Republicanism or use them for a one sentence quote on some issue related to Canadian Republicanism. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per G2bambino. I'm finding a few sources. The most compelling are:
  • Jonathan Ritchie and Don Markwell. "Australian and Commonwealth Republicanism." The Round Table. Volume 95, Number 5 (October 2006): 727-737. ISSN 0035-8533
  • Laura Anderson. "Gendered and Racialized Portrayals of the Governor General: Newspaper Coverage of Canada’s Head of State." Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science. Association, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. May 30- June 1, 2007.
  • Allison Henry. "An Australian Head of State: Where Are We At?" The Sydney Papers. Volume 17 Issue 2 (Autumn 2005). 20-32. ISSN 1035-7068
  • Hyung Gu Lynn. Bipolar Orders: The Two Koreas Since 1989. London: Zed Books, 2007. ISBN 1842777432
  • Glenn Patmore "Choosing the Republic: The Legal and Constitutional Steps in Australia and Canada." Queen's Law Journal. Vol. 31, 2006.
These are all academic sources that reference Citizens for a Canadian Republic. There are also apparent mentions in the Ottawa Citizen and sceneandheard.ca. As such, I think there are enough third-party sources to keep the article. A great deal of work is needed to improve the article, but with the international focus of these sources, I think this is a start. WHen I have a bit of time tomorrow, I'll work thses into the article. freshacconci talktalk 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some mention at CBC Radio, Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Citizens Centre Report, CanWest News and CTV News. Now, these are all brief mentions, but nevertheless, these are 3rd party sources that establish some legitimacy for the group. freshacconci talktalk 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mentions in a few journals and newspapers doesn't fulfill notability requirements. Those references don't add anything because they all say the same thing - talk of a few protests, Canada should dump the Queen and become a republic, etc. That's not notable. None of those sources offers unique insight or notability. Lots of frivolous and insignificant organizations and people are mentioned in books, journals, television shows, etc. but their articles always get deleted because they simply don't belong in a resource like Wikipedia. Those sources you mention, all that they do is establish the group exists. That's it. They don't establish notability. This article has been tagged since February of this year and it has not improved. No new sources have been added. The above editor (Freshacconci) has also edit warred on the article, removing legitimate information that is critical of the group, thus making it difficult to even improve the article. The article has gone through 2 previous AfD's with no consensus reached. Obviously the article is useless and needs to be junked because we will constantly end up here again and again. Laval (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you've gone through every article I've mentioned? Read each one and know exactly what's written in them and what they say about CCR? Interesting: you say there are no 3rd party sources, and when several are brought to the table, you deem them not good enough. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, these are legitimate third-party sources, which clearly establish notability by Wikipedia standards (if not Laval's). How about letting other editors decide for themselves? And as for my edit warring, let's remember you were the other party in that little battle. And then you ignored my request for concensus and reverted my edits, restoring controversial information that violates WP:UNDUE and most importantly WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 04:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are other editors supposed to read those sources when they are not available online? If they are, provide links. Back up your claims and assertions. As I stated, whatever articles I have read online clearly say the same things as CCR says, which does not establish notability. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines, based on your trolling habits and facetious arguments. Laval (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now you've decended into personal attacks. I am expecting an apology for the above remarks. And as for the sources, as I've remarked, when I have a bit of time (AFDs take 5 days), I will add these sources and provide links when available. I am now officially fed up with you and will be making a formal complaint about your uncivility and personal attacks. freshacconci talktalk 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been fed up with you the moment you began your ill conceived attacks on me. I was the one who first reported you. Don't ever forget that. I have already informed the adminstator that you had better not troll, stalk, harass, or otherwise threaten me. Laval (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, lack of reliable independent sources, and those listed above (not in the article, by the way) do not seem to be primarily about the group. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just started adding some of the refs I mentioned above. I would like to expand the article a bit as well, and will do so (working in some more of those refs), a little bit later today. I have actual work to do now (earning a living, paying bills, buying food...). freshacconci talktalk 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the notability has now been established with valid references.--Ducio1234 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources basically say the same thing. None of them give us any particularly 3rd-party analysis of what the organization is about - no academic study of the groups politics has been made and they have never even been discussed by any major (or minor) political party. From the viewpoint of WP:N, the article still fails the test. It is also noteworthy that none of the 3 lawsuits brought individually by 3 members of the group involved the group itself - CCR never initiated any lawsuits or legal proceedings but the article makes it seem as if CCR was directly involved, which it was not. Charles Roach is the only remotely notable person with the group, while Pierre Vincent and Tony O'Donohue have some minor notability. Tom Freda, who started the group, has no notability. Laval (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, these sources do not say basically the same thing and they give evidence for the general guidelines for notability. freshacconci talktalk 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the sources you list talk about republicanism in general, not the CCR or its views on republicanism. There has been a lot written about republicanism in Canada even though it has no popular support, especially in French. I can show you tons of French materials about republicanism. Most Quebec parties support some form of republicanism. None of them has any mention of CCR. Laval (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Actually, that's not true. Every single reference I included mentions Citizens for a Canadian Republic by name and not in a trivial manner, unless it was the section on republicanism in Canada which contains sources for both CCR and republicanism in general. freshacconci talktalk 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you seriously telling me that those books listed in the article and the journals listed (which are obviously not available online) actually discuss and analyse the CCR??? The links you provided in the article are all newspaper articles which only report CCR's involvement in protests, and the involvement of 3 members in lawsuits, none of those lawsuits directly involving CCR. I can guarantee you that no serious journal or author is even going to give CCR the time of day to mention in their book, even in passing. Laval (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Yes, Jonathan Ritchie and Don Markwell; Laura Anderson; Allison Henry; Hyung Gu Lynn and Glenn Patmore all mention CCR by name. And print sources are completely valid (I can't believe I need to say that!). I found all these sources through Google Scholar and the actual articles through JSTOR and other academic databases. This is what I do for a living. I research academic sources. There is no requirement for sources to be available online. I've provided links when possible. Everything else can be backed up. I am perfectly willing to send a neutral editor all the sources I have as a PDF (did you notice I included page numbers where CCR was mentioned?). CCR is the only republican org. in Canada and academics focusing on republicanism, colonialism and other similar subjects do know about them.freshacconci talktalk 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No there is no requirement for only online sources, but the burden of proof regarding print sources is upon you to show some evidence that they do significantly prove notability for the CCR. Brief mentions in a few journals do not account for anything. I could claim right now that I have a bunch of print sources that prove CCR is a fringe group of lunatics - I could even use real articles as the basis for this claim since they are not available online. The only way for anyone to see if I am telling the truth is to go out to a library and look them up, and then they would see that I was lying. So there has to be some accountability and trust. If you make claims that print sources say somethat that proves notability, then the burden is upon you to show us some evidence. Otherwise it is just a claim without any backing. Laval (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In other words, you claim that these journals provide some evidence of CCR's notability. But we do not have access to them. The fact that Google searches do not bring up any articles that prove such notability makes it unlikely that any journals significantly analyse CCR to the point of proving notability. Laval (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment I'll ignore that last comment. However, you'll need to point to the guideline which says that the burdon of proof is on me. Please read what Wikipedia:Citing sources says about this, which states in part: "If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context". These sources are acceptable and I have offered to provide PDFs of all the articles to a neutral editor for verification, which is more than I'm required to do. freshacconci talktalk 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I am currently seeing 16 references (basic citations, no quotes), however, as they are used in the article, they do not prove notability. I am not asking you to give PDFs or show evidence that these references exist. What I want to know is how do these sources prove notability? Read the article again yourself since you worked on it. How does it establish notability? There is nothing thus far to demonstrate notability. Laval (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Republicanism in Canada. CCR is the country's only republican organisation, but it is not very widely known or influential. --G2bambino (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I could see how that would be a good idea. I've been working on the article but I think I've hit a wall. It can only be expanded so far without starting to talk about Republicanism in Canada instead. I'd support merging. freshacconci talktalk 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am so done with this now. I added sources, expanded where I could. Not a great article but worth keeping either on its own or merging per G2bambino. freshacconci talktalk 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's sourced as per G2bambino's suggestion above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me. It is sourced adequately, and it is a significant organisation in the public life of Canada. At least as significant as the Monarchist League of Canada. If it is the only Republican mobvement in Canada, then there is its notability!--Gazzster (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, while the MLC may not be a household name in Canada, it is more significant than CCR. A comparison of what each organisation has achieved and the coverage each has received will illustrate that. --G2bambino (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true (which I can't judge- though I would've thought a monarchist leaugue in a monarchy doesn't have much to acheive!) that would not demonstrate that the CCR is not significant in its own right, especially if it is the only organised voice of republicanism in Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It did in the 70s! Anyway, being the only republican organisation was about the only notable thing I could come up with for CCR. Hence, I said to merge the info into Republicanism in Canada, rather than get rid of it outright. --G2bambino (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why. It is notable. The article is adequately referenced. I've had a peek at Monarchist League of Canada. It is not footnoted at all, and the references are to the League's own sites. I've no objection to that, but it has been objected that CCR has no third party references.So those objections can be levelled against MLC also. Which leaves notability. Both are notable, as far as I can see. Certainly being the only republican body (if that is true) in Canada is notable in itself, regardless of its size or influence.--Gazzster (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a stub, though; and freshacconi, who's dug up the most references on CCR I've ever seen, said he's found all he can. So, it seems unlikely that the article's going to grow much any time soon. As for the MLC: all I hear you saying is that the article needs to be better sourced. Not much of a challenge, I'd wager, if anyone wants to take it on. --G2bambino (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the MLC, should be given an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wicked thought!--Gazzster (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To olast post of G2) Well, this exercise has been good for getting the article referenced. It's done. That was the main objection to the article. Where is the problem then? It's a lot better in that respect than MLC. It's a stub? Wikipedia is full of stubs. Being a stub, is not, in itself, a criterion for deletion or merging. Why does it need to grow?--Gazzster (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm only speaking about my view, of course, but I made my decision on two interconnected matters: notability and quantity of information available. There doesn't seem to be much of either, so I thought a merge was the best idea; stubs do seem to disappear or be merged into larger articles freqeuently enough. As I said, just my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As I express my opinion, as everyone has the right to. The community will decide it's fate, no doubt.--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. On a further note, I've just looked at the article again and see a new section was recently added; I don't think it belongs there, and, without it, the article is shortened further by a good quarter. --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, as I have explained, there exist no reliable 3rd-party sources which prove CCR's notability. There are only brief mentions here and there. None of the 3 lawsuits that were filed by individual members of the CCR were sponsored by the CCR or even involved the CCR. Freshacconci basically found all the sources he could and added the information to the article - in other words, this is as big as the article is going to get unless we use information from blogs and personal websites (as I tried) but which apparently are against WP policy. So, that means this is it. The CCR is simply not notable - they have never been involved in any political lobbying, campaigning, etc. Again, the lawsuits that are mentioned did not even involve the CCR. Its quite silly really. As for the MLC, it is off-topic to say, "If the MLC has a page here, then so should CCR" - thats a very absurd argument. One does not equal the other. Anyway, there is a long history behind the MLC and its connections to the political elites and the royal family. If you bothered to look up the MLC in a simple Google search, you would find that the MLC, founded in 1970, is far more notable than CCR, which has zero notability except for the fact that it is the only nationalist republican group in Canada. That fact alone doesn't make it notable. Laval (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not comparing CCR with MLC, are we? CCR must stand on its own merits. I only brought MLC myself because it was used as a comparison. And btw, MLC has no third party references either, and zero footnotes. If we judge subjects by comparing them with subjects of contrary ideologies, we will end up deleting Sarah Palin because she's not as significant as Barak Obama, or Seventh Day Adventists because they're not as significant as Roman Catholicism.--Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gazzster has a point about CCR notability compared to MLC. One has to ask (as Gazzster did): Why is the MLC more notable then the CCR? Being in a monarchy, ya'd think it should be the opposite. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference lies in influence, I would guess; the MLC has had more. Hence, I said that sources for the MLC article should be relatively easy to find, compared to those for CCR. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I put further evidence on the discussion page. It is mentioned in the media and has an international scope via Common Cause. --Lawe (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Google news search reveals limited coverage but article gives indication there is probably more out there. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is the only republican organization in Canada, and because (pace GoodDay), the Wikipedian in me trumps the Monarchist in me. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So may we conclude that there is no clear consensus to delete or merge? May we close this?--Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (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/Citizens_for_a_Canadian_Republic&oldid=1136113081"