Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations (2nd nomination)

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. Even if I was to ignore every single comment made by an IP in this debate, there is no consensus to delete. There is a genuine disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient to confer notability on the organisation. Three registered editors think they are; two editors explicitly think they aren't; and I'll infer Peridon agrees with those two editors even though he or she does not advance a reason for his or her delete position. The arguments on both sides are at least reasonable if not well-developed. There is certainly no overwhelming argument presented to keep or, in particular, to delete. The result has to be no consensus. Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the general notability criteria and is a magnet for unscrupulous and subtle advertising. The article was created by an obvious SPA. On a related note, a visitor at a paid seminar has emailed in (see OTRS ticket 2010080510001509 for those with OTRS privileges) and warned us that this organisation's speaker at the conference said that "we've put many links on pages throughout Wikipedia particularly to our membership pages which have brought in a lot of money." I should also add that the current sources do not establish notability: if we can find several articles solely about the FMTA, that might be enough: as it is, there're only rather trivial mentions, or quotes from the company. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article from the Toronto Star is probably evidence of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough news hits from the Star and a few others to establish notability. The other issues addressed in the nomination are not reason for deletion and those can be dealt with in another forum. freshacconci talktalk 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group is beyond reproach. They are very notable and are in many newspaper articles as the only authority on tenant issues. They have been officially recognized by the City of Toronto as the official representatives of Toronto's over 1,000,000. This organization brought rent controls to Ontario and there would be none without this great group. It would be a travesty to delete their page and it would be black mark on the impartiality of Wikipedia to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.211.11 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this is a well respected notable organization that is reported on widely by the media. If they are deleted I can see this getting Wikipedia a lot of bad publicity we don't need. You have to question who "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" really is and what his real motivation is for slating this organization for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.110.170 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to being an experienced editor and administrator, if you look at Chase me ladies' user page you'll see he's based in the UK and would likely have little or no vested interest in a Toronto-based organization. freshacconci talktalk 22:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See? Already we've got SPAs coming in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would anybody in their right mind want to delete this listing for Canada's oldest and largest tenants' rights organizations? I have already talked to a Toronto Star reporter who will do a feature story of Wikipedia abuses and who was behind this if this page is deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.59.120 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are regularly quoted by all Canadian media as THE experts on affordable housing. They are clearly notable and this page must be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.140.116 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find references that support the claims of FMTA being "regularly quoted by all Canadian media". There are a few Toronto Star articles, not a lot more. PKT(alk) 21:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have to ask who 'Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry' is - he's a respected Wikipedian and administrator. I note a threat from an IP address to get an article about Wikipedia abuses published in the Toronto Star. That's really the way to get your message over to us. Not. Please take note - the more nonsense like that that comes up, the lower the chances of saving the article. Not because we react the other way - not being frightened (we aren't - it's been done before) but feeling aggressive instead - but because we are convinced by your attitude and posts that there is really nothing that can save the article. To me, the organisation looks on the surface like a worthy group. That's not a criterion for having an article. And please note too that there are no rights to have an article. I've not got time tonight to look for references, but I will when I get more time. I can change my mind - have done more than once. But threats are not the way to do things. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I would bet anything that the IP keeps are actually bad hand votes by an FMTA opponent meant to provoke a backlash through obviously OTT comments and threats. FMTA isn't quoted in all Canadian media but a Lexis-Nexus and Factiva search shows numerous non-trivial references to them dating back 30 years in thre Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail and Now Magazine. 68.171.231.16 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cards on the table? Give us a bit more to go on - but be careful of libel... Peridon (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google the group and you'll find several attack sites dedicated to them. If one or two people are obsessive enough to do that they are obsessive enough to try to get this article deleted by bogus OTRS complaints and bad hand posts to this page. 68.171.231.19 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you read the comments sections for articles to the Toronto Sun (which does not vet comments before posting them) you'll often find comments that either slander FMTA or people associated with it or which will make OTT extreme comments pretending to be FMTA or associated persons. There has been a long term harassment campaign under way for several years and it seems to have hit Wikipedia now. 68.171.231.22 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The SPAs on this page voting for keep, regardless of what they are trying to do, will only be given the weight they are worth by any admin. worth his/her salt. None of the IPs voting keep above are advancing any kind of helpful argument so I can't imagine they will be counted towards anything. I'm !voting keep because I feel the sources establish notability. I'm sure the closing admin. will do a proper job either way and I personally don't care if this is kept or not. Comments about "friends" at ToStar are amusing but not worth fretting about. freshacconci talktalk 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes, but the individual making the SPA comments knows that they won't be considered by the closing admin. The purpose is to piss off legitimate users such as Peridon so that they vote delete out of annoyance. 68.171.231.20 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but with all due respect to Peridon, he/she isn't advancing a real reason for delete beyond being annoyed, so that may not count for much. freshacconci talktalk 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevertheless SPA IPs spamming an AFD vote tend to harm the side they are claiming to support. Someone who has a sophisticated enough approach to manipulation knows this and uses it to their advantage. That's why it's important to be aware of these "black propaganda" tactics. 68.171.231.18 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • SPA spamming can indicate either an unsophisticated attempt to sway a vote in favour of the position you are advocating or a sophisticated attempt to sway a vote against the position you are obstensively advocating. That's why they should be completely ignored and why one must be careful not to be swyed one way or the other by the comments but consider only the facts. 68.171.231.20 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~

  • Keep In addition to the Toronto Star article cited, there apparently are a number of others in G News archive that are primarily about the association, in the Star, and they are cited prominently in other papers also--even outside of Canada. BTW, when I close, my default way of looking at SPAs is to regard them as all together equivalent weight to one regular account. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (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/Federation_of_Metro_Tenants%27_Associations_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137845784"