Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Civil Liberties Association

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. It is clear from the discussion that there is a "rough consensus" for deletion. A number of the sources that have been raised qualify as reliable sources and do mention the OCLA, but in-pass mentions are not "significant coverage". Hence, the arguments for deletion have merit and deletion is therefore warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Civil Liberties Association

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (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)

Non-notable organisation; purpose of the page is promotional. There are not sources that are no reliable sources that are primarily about the organisation. The page was created by an editor who has admitted a conflict of interest (see Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association/Archive_1#Rancourt_conflict_of_interest) and is maintained/guarded by a Single Purpose Account Von Zepherus (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree, not notable. It looks like self-promotion for a minor local volunteer group run by a grad student and mentioned only barely and in passing by reliable sources, despite what looks like a calculated play for publicity with their dominatrix award. Rancourt's conflict of interest doesn't help matters at all. Vi Dwell (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[Note: I've moved my still delete comment under the line below. Vi Dwell (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)]

Do Not Delete. I disagree with deletion for the following reasons: 1. No grounds have been provided for lack of notability based on WP:NOTE. 2. No grounds have been provided for criticism of the sources based on WP:RS The grounds provided for deletion consist of nothing but baseless assertions. In addition, the editor responsible for the current content of the article was an independent outsider, Jytdog. He was not the person who created the page nor was I. I agree with the current content of the page and have been monitoring the changes to this page because it seems to be under attack by an individual and his associates. Baseless, prejudicial changes have been repeatedly made amounting to vandalism which concerns me. I have also been the target of personal attacks as a result which is simply motivating me to remain involved. Tobeme free (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

ADMIN I would like an extension to review the information provided by Ceosad. I would also like to note that OCLA is the main Civil Liberties Association for the province of Ontario and by virtue of that fact alone is notable. However, I can and will address the issues raised but will need some time do so. There have been several main stream media articles talking about OCLA, the work they do, and some have been focused on cases that OCLA has handled. I believe these address notability but in order to be sure I have to understand what the issues are in the references provided below and locate the articles. Tobeme free (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - @Tobeme free: Feel free to provide better sources, but read this first: WP:ORGSIG. Ceosad (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

TY Ceosad I've been busy the last few days so I'll starting to prepare my case today and will hopefully be able to post it tomorrow or the next day at the latest. In the meantime I came across a rather interesting article that the editors might want to read. I have noticed a big difference between how this Wikipedia article has been handled by editors and Admins and how much more controversial articles have been handled in the past. I have followed the discussions on some of the articles and in the past the Editors and Admins handled them with objectivity and fairness which resulted in controversies being addressed properly. I'm actually shocked at the way this one is being handled and it seems that it could be because there has been a general change in the way Wikipedia has evolved. Evolution isn't always positive. It can be negative as well. This article is just an FYI and not directly related to this discussion. Wikipedia Is Basically a Corporate Bureaucracy, According to a New Study Tobeme free (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin You might find this article above interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/tobeme_free Vi Dwell (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete - This article has serious trouble with both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:INDEPTH. I could not find any good sources on the organization itself, and all of the events it had been involved with seemed to be more or less trivial, as proven by lack of varied media coverage. Neither notability nor reliability can be established. Ceosad (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as nothing at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - No better references to support notability found. I was about to elaborate on notability as defined by Wikipedia but from looking at Tobeme free's user talk page, it appears that attempt has been made already, unsuccessfully it appears. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Userify: No indication of notability for now, but creator has said they "will address the issues raised but will need some time do so". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - no indication of notability. History of both article and user indicates User:Tobeme free is a single purpose user who has been playing games for months so is underserving of more time. His claim that "OCLA is the main Civil Liberties Association for the province of Ontario" is untrue. The OCLA has no such status or reputation, is a new organization, unknown, and is entirely volunteer with no professional staff and seem to be largely based around disgraced professor Denis Rancourt and his complaints against his former employer, the University of Ottawa. If anything, OCLA is trading off of the name of the well known and established Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) which is also based in Ontario. I don't think it's a coincidence that the OCLA chose a name that is so similar and implies an affiliation where there is none or that Tobeme free has been incredibly aggressive against any attempt to clarify in the article that OCLA is unaffiliated with CCLA. I also suspect, given that his editing has been almost entirely concerned with this article, that User:Tobeme free has some sort of undisclosed affiliation or association with the OCLA. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as fails ORGDEPTH and has notability problems. Per nom. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

TY Reviewing this as well.

• Delete. As was suggested previously, userfy may be an option, but considering that significant coverage in RSs appears to be difficult (or impossible) to come by, it's unclear how fruitful any amount of effort on the part of the creator(s) will be; in the near future, at least. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment What is 'userfy'? I'm certainly willing to look at all options. TY Tobeme free (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tobeme free: There's a good overview of the process at WP:USERFY. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON as being too new and small. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm reviewing your reference today. TY Bearian Tobeme free (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do Not Delete, continued. As per WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Here are examples of significant coverage and provision of detailed information regarding the organizations creation and founding. Mainstream media in Canada as well as independent media have picked up and written about OCLA because the creation of new provincial level organizations is significant. Until recently the only civil liberties organizations that existed were CCLA (national) and BCLA (provincial) both of whom (like OCLA) are independent of each other and unconnected.

Radio-Canada is part of the CBC National News network. It is mainstream media and only reports on developments of significance to Canadians.

L’Association ontarienne des libertés civiles voit le jour, Radio-Canada

2013-01-24: Une nouvelle association qui défend les libertés civiles des Ontariens, Le midi-trente Ontario, Radio-Canada

CBC Radio

La Rotonde, services French-Canadian students at the University of Ottawa. The creation of OCLA holds some significance to this community which must address the implementation of french language rights in Canada.

2013-01-28: À la défense des droits civiques ontariens, La Rotonde

La Rotonde Wiki

CJFO is a french language radio station that services French-Canadians in Ottawa, Canada's bilingual capital. Again, the creation of OCLA holds some significance to this community which must address the implementation of french language rights in Canada.

2013-01-25: Entrevue sur la création de l’ALCO, En directe d’ici, CJFO FM

CJFO-FM Wiki

There is one major national media outlet, and two local media outlets reporting on the creation and founding of OCLA in some detail. Note that Canada only has three national media outlets. The other two are newspapers. CBC is the major one.

Later Coverage based on my own Google search:

BBC, UKs largest mainstream media outlet. This article does more than just announce the award. It explains why she was given the award by OCLA.

October 22, 2014. Canada: Dominatrix given civil liberties award.

Globe and Mail. Canada's major national newspaper reports on an issue that OCLA intervened on. It is an in-depth article on the issue and quotes from significant people involved in the issue in a significant way including OCLA.

Jun. 07, 2015. Toronto Mayor John Tory to introduce motion to end carding in the city

McLean's magazine. A long running major national Canadian magazine writes in depth on this issue and interviews and quotes from OCLA to get their perspective on this civil rights issue.

October 22, 2015. Naming names on the virtual bathroom wall

All of the above are major national media.

The OCLA page has a more comprehensive list: http://ocla.ca/our-work/media-coverage/

Argument for Do Not Delete

This is a new organization but, in my opinion, despite that, it is meeting the basic criteria for notability and reliability of sources. This is clear after reviewing each article and reviewing the sections provided as references.

It is not a corporation or an events organization (which would be event-driven). It is a civil rights organization which intervenes on behalf of the public in defense of their civil rights. This incorporates many types of activities.

Like the ACLU, OCLA has intervened on behalf of and/or supported controversial people in the extreme left, right, etc. This has made them controversial.

Some evidence of that can be seen in this thread where we have drive-by accounts, suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and putting exactly the same deceptive spins on the same normal things in order to create false impressions. If you actually look at their history and their comments, some of the allegations are almost word for word identical from different accounts and IPs.

For example, they attack me by calling me a 'single purpose' account when my account has existed since 2008. While I've only intervened twice on Wiki articles, once to correct some minor factual errors and this time, I have followed discussion on other controversial articles many times. Those situations didn't require any intervention on my part because experienced editors were engaging in objective and fair interventions.

In this situation, we have drive-by accounts driving the entire process of complaints. Some of these accounts have a history of disruptive behavior, very few interventions and those that exist are very recent. In some cases, these drive-by accounts have no other interventions and are by definition, themselves, single purpose accounts. At least one was blocked by an Admin for personally attacking me.

Yet these drive-by accounts are being taken seriously and given credibility by editors and admins who apparently don't do any research into them, despite their constant baseless false accusations, their time-wasting false complaints, and their troll-like behavior. This behavior has resulted in the OCLA page and contributors being effectively harassed and now the page is threatened with deletion. Another process instigated by them.

I would agree that the article might be considered 'borderline' based on the references provided by editors above. However, being borderline should err on retention not deletion in the case of an organization that has demonstrated by it's actions over a three year period, that it isn't some fly-by-night organization, is likely to be around for a long time, and will easily, eventually, meet the criteria in full.

In addition, in my opinion, the following WP reference that I located demonstrates that OCLA exactly meets the criterion for notability and reliability. It does so based on the articles I have referenced above from CBC's Radio-Canada (national), BBC (UK - national), and the Globe and Mail (national). There are more articles by national main stream media on the OCLA media list I provided.

WP:NONPROFIT "Non-commercial organizations. Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I'm seeing enough coverage, including from English and French-language CBC and the Ottawa Citizen. Seems to me we do have significant, multiple reliable sources. Ontario is Canada's most populous province, by far. It's cited prominently in The Globe and Mail, the largest national newspaper, as well as Macleans, a national newsmagazine. And indeed, their involvement in the dominatrix case was covered by the BBC newsite. Some or all of the CBC coverage is indeed non-national, Ontario-region stuff, but taken as a whole, I'd say OCLA does just meet WP:NGO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow users who !voted prior to the addition of new sources to reconsider should they wish to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Still delete - To be me is just rehashing the existing inadequate sources and adding more spin. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Still Delete: Sources listed [above] by Tobeme Free are weighed and found very much wanting.

• It's quite disingenuous, for example, to refer to a local CBC story as having appeared in 'a national media outlet' when you mean 'only the local affiliate of a national media outlet,' unless you can demonstrate that the piece was taken up nationally by the CBC.
• "Le Rotonde" is a student newspaper.
• A lone mention on the local radio station CJFO doesn't do much to establish notability, no matter how you spin it.
• The BBC news story is a one-off news-of-the-strange story about the OCLA having given a "free speech" award to a dominatrix. Nothing else the OCLA has done has interested the BBC.
• The Globe and Mail only brushes against Hickey and the OCLA in passing once in a much longer story; it's forty-two words out of a nine-hundred word story. Simply being mentioned briefly in passing in a story is too little to hang your hat on.
• The McLeans story also only mentions Hickey and the OCLA in passing once in a much longer story; it's seventy words out of sixteen hundred. Again, too little to hang a hat on.

This is simply not a notable organization at this time. And it is simply not the case that any organization whose name occasionally pops up for a second or two here and there, glancingly mentioned in passing in larger stories, [is entitled to] a Wikipedia entry. Vi Dwell (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I perused the newly-added sources above and came to roughly the same conclusions as Vi Dwell. My opinion stands. --Finngall ^talk

23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Still Do Not Delete for all the legitimate (evidence-based) as well as WP sourced reasons I provided above in three identified sections. My Argument For Do Not Delete provides the rationale and the WP source it's based on. Tobeme free (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Suggestion: IMHO I think all accounts which are too lazy to provide actual WP Policy references with quotes that support their positions should have their 'votes' ignored for reasons which should be obvious to everyone. Just my personal opinion. Tobeme free (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -- I count and verified 68 independent corporate-media sources in the list of links linked by Tobeme free.

Editors are applying too high a threshold and inconsistent interpretations of WP policy. By comparison: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association article has a single source with depth about the association itself and that source (its reference 2) was written by a Board member of CCLA.

The OCLA article has a history of attacks from single-purpose accounts with an apparent agenda related to an aspect of OCLA's work, all IPs were blocked for a month, one IP was banned for insistent personal attacks.

Multiple persistent attempts were made to trash the content of the article prior to the instant Deletion application.

Not a nice WP situation at all. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Rancourt I mentioned above. Vi Dwell (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to special contributor Vi Dwell: I have stated my conflict of interest here, and the current content of the article is not mine. It's editor Jytdog's, as per here. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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.