Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Gun Nutz

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 delete. I've closely read the comments of both the oppose !votes and the keep ones. While the personal statements weren't appreciated, the effort to save the article has been appreciated. Yet, as much as I personally believe that Gun Nutz may have a significant impact on gun politics, the sources that I perceive out here are either unreliable or flatly questionable, with a conflict of interest on the topic being reported. Irrespective, I cannot deny that the rough consensus here does stand for delete. At the same time, I personally should wish to allow Juno to save the article. Therefore, while I'm deleting this article, in case Juno wishes a copy of the article on their talk page, I'll be more than open to provide that so that the article can be built using reliable sources after taking feedback of established editors (perhaps in the Article Rescue Squadron, where editors did reject the notability worthiness of this article) on the quality of sources. Wifione ^Message 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Gun Nutz

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

While certainly a well-linked-to site from certain chat forums and boards, I have been unable to find reliable sources indicating notability for this Canadian firearms website. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: to administrator reviewing this afd. The editor Shawn in Montreal that started this afd has admitted below that he does not like firearms and is biased against the webforum "Canadian Gun Nutz". In addition, this afd goes against the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVE. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the kind. Regardless of my feelings about firearms, I have no bias against retaining this or any article if the subject is notable. Think about it: if "Gun Nutz" is so influential, why wouldn't I want an objective article about it, if only to document its influence? Other editors in support of this article have made positive suggestions on how it may be kept, I continue to urge you to focus your efforts there, and not on personally attacking me. I've tried to shrug off these comments but enough is enough: I've issued Juno a warning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't provide any independent, reliable sources and none appear available, so it doesn't pass WP:WEB or any other notability guideline. §everal⇒|Times 16:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, perhaps we could also redirect to a brief mention in, say, Gun politics in Canada? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to significance or notablity made, fails our inclusion criteria. Mt king ^(edits) 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The high post count alone shows notability and citations are currently being added and more sought by members at CGN. This is the predominant forum in Canada for discussing firearms!! The article is new and has plenty of potential to expand, that is what is required to keep and article at Wikipedia. JunoBeach (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JunoBeach (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Junobeach, unfortunately, Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria is very clear on what constitutes notability here on Wikipedia; simply attracting a lot of discussion posts is not sufficient.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The real problem here Shawny is you have no life! The article is still being written by myself and other members of CGN. The article needs time to expand, which is all that is required for an article to be at Wikipedia. You seem to think that getting articles deleted is a very proud and noble thing, it isn't, it hurts Wikipedia, now stop bugging me! JunoBeach (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Juno, expanding the article won't save it. A long non-notable article is no less likely to be deleted. Again, you need to find some reliable sources per Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria. I honestly tried to find some, but could not. I suggest you direct your efforts there.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CGN website is valid. It's membership claims and post counts are accurate. This site was utilized as the update site for the largest survey of Law Enforcement officers pertaining to the Long gun registry in Canada. The information was utilized, and was one of the determining factors to support abolishing the long gun registry. Bill C-391 and Bill C-19 were supported by this Canada wide survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntinstuff (talk • contribs) — Huntinstuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- There were a number of polls done, as the Canadian Firearms Registry article explains, including an official Canadian Firearms Program poll which showed strong support for the registry. At any rate, I don't doubt that your web forum includes police officers, and many of those may have been opposed. But I don't see how the notability, even notoriety, of the now-abolished long gun registry confers notability onto this web forum, simply because it was discussed, and possibly, denounced there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems Shawn in Montreal is a left wing socialist Quebecer that does not guns and the CGN. It is all making sense to me now :) JunoBeach (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not too far from the truth, my friend. Anyway, do try to find some sources. ;-)Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And should your article be deleted because it doesn't currently meet our notability requirements, remember that you have other options. There are other sites and wikis out there. Anyway, we shall see. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I knew you were a biased gun hater! This whole deletion AFD should be quashed! JunoBeach (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. I also think JunoBeach should review our guidelines on conflicts of interest (and possibly on canvassing -- off-wiki activities count too), as the article does seem rather promotional. Finally, can we please end the flame war? --N Y Kevin @014, i.e. 23:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is the largest gun related site in Canada, and it's influential enough to start & complete a campaign to vote Mark Holland out of office. It's been mentioned several times in the news, and even talked about by the Coalition for Gun Control and the Liberal party. I believe it meets the criteria for the article (just barely, but it does meet it). So therefore I vote to keep, but this whole pro-gun anti-gun thing with Shawn in Montreal and JunoBeach needs to stop. That's not what this is about. Casual T .30-06 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in my nomination is based on me being "anti-gun." And if you could add some references to the site being prominently cited by, say, the Liberal Party of Canada, that would definitely count as an independent source, in my view. So please do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, that's not what this is about. ;) Here's the link from the Liberal Party... http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/reality-check-conservative-ajaxpickering-candidate-caught-courting-support-gun-lobby/. Which pretty much talks about Operation Turf Mark Holland: http://www.turfmholland.ca/about.html Casual T .30-06 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just checked Mark Holland, which you linked to, and I see no mention of this website having played any role in any campaign to "vote him out of office." If you want to claim that notability for this website, it needs to be verifiable, not original research. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, while I am trying to assume assume good faith, I also see that the above comment is Casual T .30-06's first edit since September 2010, so I also wonder, as mentioned above, what sort of off-wiki canvassing may be going on, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're wondering, I haven't edited in a long long time because I was sick and tired of deletionists always deleting pages I was working on, but I still look at pages that interest me and noticed a link to the CGN page from the Canadian Firearms Program page and felt I had to act (I am a member of the Liberal's so called "gun lobby" after all ;) ). Actually, back in the day I actually tried to make a CGN wiki page myself, which got speedily deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casual_T_.30-06&oldid=243912783
In fairness, since my nomination I see that an anon IP has added two Toronto Star articles that do briefly mention this website in relation to the Holland campaign and an increase in "hardline" pro-gun tactics. It's not significant coverage, by any means, but it does suggest a significant role by this website, among others. WP:WEB does states that: "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." If this site has played a notable role in galvanizing pro-gun opinion in the country, as the Toronto Star claims that it has, then that is indeed an argument for retaining, I agree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the CGC link I mentioned before. http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/News/news0908.nfa.pdf Casual T .30-06 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (I've closed up some of the paragraph breaks) Yes, I'd say that the attention paid by Liberals and gun control advocates to this site supports the premise that it has had a "significant or demonstrable effect" in recent years, even if the news coverage has not been substantial, to date. Let's see what others say. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It clearly exists, but having looked at the quotes they are of the form "a posting at...." or "a discussion at", nothing really substantial enough for own article, perhaps a section the Gun Control article. Mt king ^(edits) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... the Turf Mark Holland campaign found here http://www.turfmholland.ca/ originated at Canadian Gun Nutz. Note that CGN is also linked at the TMH page. There are numerous threads at CGN discussing this campaign, as well as CGN member's donations of cash, and time to the campaign of Mark Holland's opponent (and eventual victor) Chris Alexander.

The Coalition for Gun Control referenced CGN in a news release http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/HandoutElection2011.pdf, and mentioned CGN's involvement with the Chris Alexander campaign. 45.70 FTW (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.70 FTW (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — 45.70 FTW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to Gun politics in Canada or Canadian Firearms Registry, the two articles from The Star make explicit mentions of this site's role with respect to the public campaings around gun laws.Diego (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just another link mentioning CGN. http://www.canada.com/news/Fredericton+registry+targets+toys+critics+complain/6064023/story.html Casual T .30-06 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. There appears to be no non-trival coverage whatsoever. Also, oppose the merge suggested by DKiego, since there is no indication that this forum has made any notable, or even real, contribution to either Canadian "gun politics" or the firearms registry. Resolute 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merges of content don't require notability at all, only reliable sources. The relevant policy here is WP:PRESERVE, not WP:N. That said, if there's no consensus to merge then it should be moved to the incubator, since the original author has requested time to improve it. Diego (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Diego, come on: reliable sources = notability. That's the point of having them. As for the creator's request for more time to improve it, he's having ample time. I've urged him to add reliable sources. In response, all he's done to date is personally attack me. I don't see him making any efforts to improve, even as others post news refs in this CfD.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability = multiple reliable independent sources. We have The Star articles which is a single site that makes the claims verifiable, thus the content should be rescued and not deleted (Deletion should be the last recourse per deletion policy), but we don't have multiple sources so there shouldn't be a whole article. That's why the content has to be preserved with a merge and not a Keep. Diego (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-- these two links indicate that the main supporter of gun control and the firearms registry feel that CGN is notable enoungh to be a concern http://guncontrolcanada.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/gun-lobby-sole-representative-of-civil-society-on-canadian-delegation-at-un/ and http://guncontrolcanada.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/from-advocacynet-elizabeth-mandelman-talks-about-the-treatment-she-received-from-the-pro-gun-community/— Sjemac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Blogs are not reliable sources. Mt king ^(edits) 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:JUSTABLOG. If there's evidence that the Coalition for Gun Control of Canada is trustworthy for this subject, the above coverage would help establishing notability for CGN. A quick Google News search for "coalition for gun control" canada shows that it is being used by reliable sources as a source for relevant knowledge on the topic. Diego (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It occurs to me that Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS may apply here, as well. The site became the subject of media mentions and criticism from pro-gun control advocates largely during an electoral campaign, one that sought to abolish the long gun registry via a Conservative majority government. Now that those events have come to pass, it'll be interesting to see what the impact of the site is, going forward. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP-- I feel that CGN is notable enough to warrant notice and inclusion in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob murray ca (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this web site is presented; nor could I find any myself. The two Toronto star passing mentions are not significant and do not demonstrate that this website has had an impact. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what they say is verifiable per wp:RS, so their content should be kept with a merge per the WP:PRESERVE policy, not deleted. Diego (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage, to the extent it exists, is incidental. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete; non-notable. Incidental mentions in blogs and news stories do nothing to establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources to show public interest, which is the basis for notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you seem to be confusing encyclopedia-building with journalism. This is surprising, because you have participated in hundreds (probably thousands) of deletion discussions and you should by now know our notability guidelines very well. So I have no doubt that you are well aware that the basis for notability is not "public interest", but the availability of reliable sources.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia draws on reliable secondary sources; without them, there can be no content. A journalist can do original research to satisfy public interest, but No original research is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. As a result we have very detailed coverage of some very obscure topics which are of little interest to anyone except highly specialised audiences, and would make most of the general public fall into a very deep sleep. If the basis of notability was based on public interest, as you claim, we could probably delete half of Wikipedia without controversy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it was not listed by an ARS member, but by a new editor who contributed to this article seeking assistance with Wikipedia's deletion processes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic fails WP:GNG, because of the two references to reliable sources ([1] and [2]), both offer only a trivial passing mention of Canadian Gun Nutz. The latter of those two refs mentions it only as the final item in a list. I see no plausible assertion that the article meets any of the more specific criteria of WP:WEB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2012 (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.