Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Woodlands Preservation League

New Woodlands Preservation League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.
And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?
The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.
And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related Gatineau Park Protection Committee and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 2,000 word response by the article's creator and the confirms my feeling that this is and the GPPC article are WP:SOAPBOX. "And what have you done for your country lately?" kind of sums it up. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of doing something for your country. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By creating, I meant creating a link to be filled in. And I didn't do that. And if you didn't then I withdraw the claim.
However, bottom line, Ahunt has been on a rampage to out members of the GPPC/NWPL. And I still believe he has been canvassing to have the articles deleted--even if the evidence clearly contradicts his main argument: that they are not notable.
I have provided ample notability evidence; yet Ahunt keeps saying they are "superficial."
Wow... --Stoneacres (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. CBC, CTV, the Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, Radio Canada, etc. Which part of these national organizations which have covered the NWPL/GPPC is not notable. Have you read the list I provided? Or have you just jumped onto the deletion bandwagon?
According to the Wikipedia references above, that list more than confirms the notability of the organizations. The GPPC/NWPL are not notable in terms of how many members they have; they are notable in terms of what they have achieved, both in terms of effective change to a sorry situation, and in terms of providing the public an accurate picture of what is going on.
Have they served the public interest? Yes. Have they broadened knowledge of an issue? Indubitably. Would it serve knowledge to expunge them from Wikipedia? You decide.
And let the darkness fall all round...--Stoneacres (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I was about to comment that though the Citizen article does credit Murray with a role in recognising Percy Sparks, but it does not appear to mention the NWPL in any way. Note that I can't find the entire article, but this quote shows that, as far as the Citizen is concerned, the NWPL was not involved. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mnelson: If you read the sources I provided, you would have seen that NCC Chairman Beaudry mentioned the NWPL in his speech dedicating the Sparks Hall. The whole reason the NCC dedicated the Sparks Hall was as a result of the presentation the NWPL made to the board in 2003. Ergo: the Citizen article is about the achievement of the NWPL. Although it mentions Murray, it is mentioning his activities as NWPL member.
Radically changing the official history of Gatineau Park, not notable? 50 news articles, not notable?
Below is the full article on the Sparks Hall dedication. Recognizing Murray's contribution as NWPL member--though not mentioning it by name. And Murray's guest column which the Citizen article references below was signed "Jean-Paul Murray is vice-president of the NWPL."
Not notable? You should do proper research before making unfounded statements advancing your ... point of view--Stoneacres (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the entire content of that article.
I stand by the Citizen not identifying the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action. Even though at one location it says that Murray caused the change, and at another says that Murray is the vice-president of the NWPL, it is synthesis to connect the two (from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MNelson: You are way off. How can you say it is synthesis, when I provided you with evidence that the Sparks Hall was dedicated as a result of NWPL efforts?
Here it is again:Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30
Note: the professors did not conclude that Sparks had a dominant role in creating the park, since their study was terribly flawed. Mr. Beaudry saw the evidence the NWPL presented and contradicted the study to acknowledge the NWPL was right. You might read the study yourself to see I'm right, or continue making unfounded claims.
Below is Murray's critique of the professors study. His research was presented to the NCC as NWPL research. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentionned before, the Citizen still does not identify the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action.
The NCC's chairman Beaudry does credit the NWPL as "highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks". However, the Beaudry is clear that "as a result of [the NWPL's] comments, [the study was commissioned]", and that the NCC is recognizing Sparks "as a result of the study". Though Beaudry says that "A resulted in B" and "B resulted in C", he does not say that "A resulted in C"; as such, a proper summary would be that "due to NWPL efforts, the NCC commissionned a study (later criticised by Murray) that resulted in the recognition of Sparks."
I don't think that this determines notability; the recognition of Sparks seems to be a relatively minor event (no major news coverage; Google News archive searches [1][2][3] show no items relating to this Percy Sparks, let alone his recognition), and as I explained earlier, the NWPL was not directly responsible for his recognition (the study was). -M.Nelson (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay MNelson: prepare to apologize for uttering a falsehood. You should research before talking. Read the study: and then I dare you to say that the study was responsible for the recognition of Percy Sparks.http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1663_gatineau_study_e.pdf. Do you ever read stuff before jumping to illogical, unfounded conclusions?
You did not explain that the NWPL was not directly responsible. You claimed it without any evidence or logic. The study was commissioned as a result of NWPL research and presentation to the board. The NWPL handed all its voluminous research to the NCC following its May 2003 presentation to the board. The professors took all that research, adding almost nothing that the NWPL hadn't given them, and changed the conclusion that Sparks was a significant player--being paid $23,000 for using our research. Had you read the material I sent you, instead of pushing your deletion agenda, you would have realized this.
Even the Citizen, in an editorial, recognized the NWPL work. That you can't find a good deal of news coverage on this only testifies to your limited research skills.
Your latest contribution lacks logic and credibility.
Whim and prejudice are no substitute for facts and truth... --Stoneacres (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I find it laughable that you consider my latest contribution to lack logic and credibility; since you have not done anything to disprove my points, I'll simply reword them in hopes that you'll understand what I'm getting at.
I have explained that in the Citizen item, "It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks." Using two separate conclusions (Murray caused the NCC to change; Murray is vice-president of NWPL) to reach a third conclusion (NWPL caused the change) is synthesis. This third conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from WP:SYNTHESIS, please read!).
Beaudry's speech does not say that the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks; if you have read the speech, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. As I clearly stated before, Beaudry says that the NWPL resulted in the study's commissioning, and the study resulted in the recognition of Sparks. This is what I refer to as being 'indirectly responsible'. He did not say that the NWPL resulted in the recognition of Sparks, which would make it direct.
Even if the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks (as I have explained above, sources say it was not), one Citizen article is not "significant coverage" per WP:NOTABLE, and an editorial carries even less weight. From WP:RELIABLE, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".
Though I am honoured to be treated to similar ad hominem attacks as Ahunt (whose editing I greatly respect), might I recommend that you refrain from such comments in the future (my "limited research skills"); they do nothing to advance the discussion, and some editors might consider you to be a bit uncivil. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Woodlands_Preservation_League