Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army.ca

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. Prodego ^talk 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] army.ca

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e3599def-04c4-4f34-8966-955cf6872684&p=1 (One non-trivial independant article using multiple quotes from army.ca by a very recognised mass media outlet A National print newspaper - Not a discription or simply a link, but use of quotes to make a large part of the discussion. Quotes were not part of a press release. As per Wikipedia Notability regulations) KlcCaenos

• I only see army.ca mentioned once in the article, and only in passing - and the article was not about army.ca but about reservists in Afghanistan. The quotes were from army.ca but not about the site. I ask the question later in this page - is the fact that a website is used as a reference good enough to establish notability?

The guidelines seem a bit vague so in my opinion this bears further scrutiny. Also don't forget to please sign your comments with four tildes. Two posters are quoted - the entire content relevant to army.ca reads as follows: Contributors to the discussion forums at the pro-defence website army.ca yesterday characterized Cpl. Boneca's negative comments as a means of dealing with the intense pressure of front-line combat. One contributor called the complaints "normal army bitching."
"Most of us, myself included, have said allot (sic) of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to 'quitting time'," wrote another poster, armybuck041...."The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront," armybuck041 continued. I'm not sure how this establishes notability of the website, but as I've said, I'm far from an expert on the subject - can you explain how this is "non-trivial"? I thought the intent of the notability guidelines was to find an article discussing the website in question directly rather than simply establishing that it was used once as a reference. Thanks for contributing this to the discussion.Michael Dorosh 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• How does one post the links for review? so that the Media recognition Criteria can be met?70.48.70.91
  • It can be done here on the talk page.Michael Dorosh 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify though, the WP:WEB has instructions on where to place the links; I'd suggest a discussion of them here first as the rules qualify the links with "trivial" as discussed below. If there is consensus that notability has been met, it's a simple matter of posting the verifying info to the article and removing the deletion tag after which it shouldn't ever be an issue again.Michael Dorosh 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Requirements for media recognition are sketchy at best. Please clarify so that it can be made available to the staff of Wikipedia, and should it fail to meet the requirements then I am sure actions can be made to rectify this issue and solve it as quickly as possible. Of note I will not get into a personal issues which has forced this to come to a head, but wonder why it took this long to be noticed if it did not meet the requirements in the first place?70.48.70.91
  • I agree with your comments on requirements for notability which is why the issue is being raised. You do not need to make the info 'available to the staff', simply adding it to the article, or to this discussion itself, should be sufficient. I've raised the question of notability for military sites at the Military History project but consensus seems to be that simple reference sites aren't notable. Perhaps if enough of us can demonstrate constructively that reference and discussion sites are notable an impetus to change the criteria can be created.Michael Dorosh 16:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• The page fails to meet the current notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (web); the criteria was listed at Talk:army.ca.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs)
• A malicious act by a person ( Michael Dorosh ) who has been BANNED from the Army.ca site due to his behaviour. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.32.165 (talk • contribs)
• This page is cited by many news organizations as a source in articles regarding the Canadian Forces. It is a site and a forum that is recommended by the Canadian Forces themselves. ((John Hill6633 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I agree completely, but you need to provide a source for that claim in order for it to be accepted by Wikipedia as true. Can you provide a reference? It would certainly help the case for retention. Also please use four tildes to sign your comments.Michael Dorosh 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dad counters reports reservist wasn't combat-ready, National Post, Friday, July 28, 2006; Global News July 9, 2006; General monitored soldiers' Web chat, The Ottawa Citizen Thursday 31 December 1998 ; US Army Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center Information Center On the Canadian Armed Forces; SMALL WARS JOURNAL 17 June 2006: just to name a few ((John Hill6633 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I went to the Small Wars Journal website, and don't see any reference to army.ca - or to an edition dated 17 Jun 2006. Can you provide an exact quote from the journal and a proper cite so we might know which issue the ref appears in? Sounds promising.Michael Dorosh 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • John, bear in mind the guidelines state that merely being mentioned in a news article is not evidence in itself of notability - suggest you read WP:WEB thoroughly. We would need to make the case that these mentions are not "trivial".Michael Dorosh 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The exact guideline states:

    This criterion excludes:

    Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. In the case of the articles you reference, do they do more than simply mention the site in passing? Can you provide quotes as well as links to the online articles, rather than just the headlines? I'm not clear on whether or not the notability guidelines include using the site as a reference. Does that in itself denote notability?Michael Dorosh 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Army.Ca is being cited as a source of note in all cases and is regarded as such by most defence journalists. ((John Hill6633 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I see you edited this sentence, thanks for that. I've talked to Mike Bobbitt briefly this morning and in fact left on good terms - I still have a link to army.ca on my own forum and recommend it for current discussions of the military. I've also added external links to army.ca in several articles on Wikipedia - something that oddly has not been done to this point. Hopefully you will help rectify this. Back on topic, though, this nomination for deletion is based on the facts of the case, which I am hoping will be debated on those merits. My question was - is the fact a site is being used as a reference in itself an indicator of notability? The rules at present suggest no, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. Thanks for participating in the discussion and I look forward to your future contributions.Michael Dorosh 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To be clear, the article as it stands now is well written, if sparse, and could no doubt be expanded considerably with ease. However, the notability requirements for web-content indicate that a website has to either have been granted an award, or else been mentioned otherwise than trivially in other media. Personally, I feel that is an overly stringent requirement and would love to see a review of these guidelines. Look at a site like feldgrau.com which contains a ton of information on the German Army, but would fail to meet the requirements for notability for a mention here. Army.ca is particularly noteworthy, in my opinion, for the number of registered users (10,000+) and the apparent utility the site is gaining in the news media. In order to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria, however, that has to be demonstrated in the article itself, and neither point would meet the stringent criteria as currently stated. If I have mis-interpreted the notability article, I will stand happily corrected. As a side note, I was indeed banned from the site, have left on good terms with the site owner (which is nobody's business and irrelevant here), and still have a link to army.ca from my own canadiansoldiers.com forum - and continue to recommend that site for discussion of current Canadian Army topics. See Wikipedia:AGF. I would like to see a review of notability requirements for web content in general and military sites in particular, as I feel many useful sites should be featured with articles on WP but fail to meet the requirements at present. Future editors to this page please ensure to follow the guidelines for Wikipedia: Civility and remember to sign comments with four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia has also stated that its mission is as an encyclopedia rather than just a "list of weblinks". I presume the intent of the web content notability standards was to ensure that truly significant sites (on the order of google.com) receive coverage they deserve rather than "vanity" sites being given coverage. Army.ca has been used by the media to investigate stories - I'm unclear whether or not proof of that on the page would count as "non-trivial" references and therefore qualify for inclusion. I look forward to the debate on this article's deletion/retention as discussion here will certainly guide us on how to apply the rules to similar military websites.Michael Dorosh 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The criteria are not faulty. A web site that contains "a ton of information on the German Army" but that hasn't itself been the subject of secondary source material does not warrant an article of its own, although it would be of benefit in a Further Reading section of German Army. Our intent is not to create a web directory, and that something is cited as a source for information about other topics does not make it automatically worthy of an article about itself. (I am cited as a source in several Wikipedia articles. Not only do I not warrant an encyclopaedia article, I am unverifiable.)

    The requirement that the article itself demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied is in part motivated by the move to a strong sourcing policy (although it does have the side benefit of making AFD discussions simpler). Citing sources is not optional.

    One should always work from, and cite, sources. If you don't have sources that are about the web site, don't write. Uncle G 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • That certainly clears up notability - thanks also for formatting the discussion here - it was driving me buggy :-) I was thinking more of military websites as they fit in the general historiagraphy of certain subjects - ie the sites themselves become historical participants through their being used to interpret events - but that probably does not warrant separate articles either.Michael Dorosh 14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete -- if this webforum was really referred to as the "official" webforum for the Canadian armed forces by the Canadian armed forces, that suggests notability. Relevant guideline is WP:WEB. But there doesn't seem to be any indication that any third party has ever discussed this website, leading to WP:V and WP:NOR problems in writing an article about it. Delete unless some reliable sources are found that we can use to write an article about this website. Jkelly 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the anonymous IP addresses who are defending the site may be able to find that reference regarding the Army considering the site an "official" forum, it was included in one of the forum threads. I don't know if the notice is still up. If that can be considered sufficient for notability, then I'd recommend concerned parties find the reference. FWIW, there are few links to army.ca in the "external links" pages of many relevant Wikipedia articles. I've just added links to army.ca at CF Land Force Command and a few others; I'd suggest those who also believe army.ca is a useful reference to do likewise to articles that seem appropriate. The guideline on Wikipedia is that external links must be relevant and expand the reader's knowledge on the article it links from.Michael Dorosh 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't understand the need for an Enclopaedic entry for a web site on a web site. Surely persons interested in researching Army.Ca can on the Internet can just as easily go the site in question. Is it a normal practice to have web sites as Wikipedia entries? Kenny.am 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just the Canuck equivalent of defenselink.mil in the USA. That website, which acts as a portal to the thousands of .mil websites, is not itself blessed with an article and I don't see why this one needs to be. --Dhartung | Talk 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a huge difference between a "list of links" and a virtual community of several thousand people that has been used as a reference in the media. Army.ca is not at all the equivalent of defenselink.mil. Compare "Defenselink.mil is the official web site for the Department of Defense and the starting point for finding U.S. military information online." to "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization."67.71.171.108 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is denying that army.ca has a large number of registered users, nor is anyone denying that the site is read by a large number of people, and occasionally given passing reference in the media. I myself recommend army.ca for those wishing to engage in current discussions on the CF. What is at issue here is whether any of that makes the site suitable for the subject of an encyclopedia article. Regardless of the ownership - private or public - and regardless of the traffic levels, and regardless of who the membership actually is (completely unverifiable in any event), the crux of the matter is - who is talking about army.ca aside from posters at the site, and how would one research an article on the site without using the site itself? Most of the references in the article are self-referential, or else indicate passing references to the site from external sources that rarely actually discuss the site itself. From that standpoint, the standards of WP:WEB are not met. (As an aside, none of this should be taken personally - newcomers to Wikipedia are often alarmed at how rigorous the intellectual standards are, as I was when one or two articles of mine were deleted outright for non-notability. Once one gets used to the idea that standards here have been built up by the consensus of thousands of editors and gets a feel for what the site is generally felt to be about, things get easier. Certainly, don't get discouraged, and should the standards for notability be met in future (if it is shown that have not to this point), you'd be heartily encouraged to resubmit the material. Thanks for your interest and participation in the discussion.Michael Dorosh 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Yunipo 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Indeed, it is pretty clear after examining both the site itself and the discussion both here and on the article Talk page that the only reason it is being offered as a candidate for deletion is a thinly-veiled personall vendetta by a disgruntled former user. 131.137.245.199 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What would be more useful would be an examination of WP:WEB and basing your vote on the facts of the case rather than my personal reputation, which is irrelevant to this discussion. The question before us is: does army.ca meet the standards set out in WP:WEB - and therefore my question to you, then, is if army.ca does meet the notability requirement, can you explain how so that the rest of us might alter our vote accordingly? As stated, I will be happy to be proven wrong.Michael Dorosh 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.179.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-02 17:52:24
• Strong Keep It is not lost on me, and one hopes, not lost on the rest of the Wiki community, that the only voice making the argument for deletion clearly has motives other than the referential integrity of the Project - no matter how insistant he might be that his motives are pure. The site in question obviously and clearly meets the standards set out in WP:WEB; it appears to be the Canadian Military version of slashdot.org, and this discussion appears to me to be closed. 66.103.226.30 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Please follow the dictates of WP:AGF. Please advise how being listed at slashdot.org meets the criteria for notability...which require mentions in other media of a non-trivial nature. Can you present an example of a non-trivial mention of army.ca at slashdot? A link to the site at the main address shows no mention of army.ca. No one has yet demonstrated notability by an actual non-trivial quote - again, passing references to the site are not indicators of notability; that would be fulfilled by an article about the site itself, not just a notice that it was accessed by a researcher. My mistake, I thought you were using mention at slashdot as proof of notability, but instead you are comparing the site to slashdot. That alone isn't proof of notability - again, you need to prove the conditions of WP:WEB have been met on the merits of the site itself, and at present, the article doesn't seem to me to provide that.Michael Dorosh 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Continuously reasserting something doesn't make it true (and rather renforces the claims that this is vendetta by a disgruntled former user). The site in question has been repeatedly referenced in national media (as scores of citations in the article document) and appears to be the effective "official" discussion site for the Canadian Army (as official as such a body can ever get) That makes meeting the requirements of WP:WEB trivial - so trivial, in fact, that is is a Speedy Keep
      • Those mentions do not number "in the scores" and all seem to be trivial, unless you can quote an article which does more than just give passing mention to the site. dictionary.com defines "scores" as "A group of 20 items." I do not see 40 or more references cited. Nor do I see a reference to the CF considering it an official discussion fact - in fact army.ca's own official disclaimer states irrevocably that army.ca is NOT an official site of the CF. "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization. Army.ca is not supported in any manner, either official or unofficial. As a result, it often does not get the time or resources that it often requires, however it also means that it can operate without the worry of following official administrative guidelines and restrictions. " see army.ca disclaimerMichael Dorosh 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --SFont 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this page was created from my account without an understanding of notbility requirements - sorry for any trouble this has caused -14ctr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarytanks (talk • contribs) 2006-08-04 01:51:43

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think it is notable if the Canadian army refers people to it as an alternative to their official web forums. --HResearcher 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they do - the article has a self-referential footnote to a forum posting there that seems inconclusive (unless someone can copy the relevant statement here - I believe it was a reference to a notice at an official forces.gc.ca site, but no one has produced that URL.) In any event, the disclaimer on the site states strongly that army.ca is in no way connected to the Canadian Forces - exact words being "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization. That doesn't exlude the possibility of the Army recommending the forum, but there needs to be proof of that presented other than what an anonymous poster on army.ca may have implied in order to meet the standards of verifiability here.

If I am remembering the thread correctly, I believe the "recommendation" by the Army to use army.c for discussions actually came from an Army.ca registered member who happened to also be a moderator at the army's own forums. So the "recommendation" came via personal relationship to the site rather than as an act of Army policy. Michael Dorosh 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm changing my vote ↓ --HResearcher 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Michael Dorosh's and Dhartung's contentions. --HResearcher 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Summing Up?

Case for deletion

• Fails to meet Notability Standards: Site has won no major awards, and received no major coverage in the media, as per WP:WEB. It has received only passing mention in some media outlet, mainly print articles.
• Voting - while WP is not a democracy and deletions are not done by vote, those in favour of retention are largely anonymous and/or silent on why they feel the article should be retained. No relevant case for retention has been presented, no evidence that the site meets the standards of WP:WEB.

Case for retention

Sum up here.

• Delete. The article makes no real case for WP:WEB compliance, such as several links to actual mainstream media mentions. As such: WP:NOT a web directory. Sandstein 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The website in question has had mention in radio, tv, and print news (references cited in the article) and so meets WP:WEB Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the sole champion of deletion is constantly editing the article in an attempt to remove or discredit the citations that enable the meeting of WP:WEB, and it is a matter of record that this user was recently banned from the website in question which causes grave doubts about his good faith in editing. While it may not be the strongest case for WP:WEB complience ever seen on Wikipedia, the fact that there 'are' cited instances of national media reports on this website, coupled to the dubious nature of both the deletion request and the subsequent editing pattern, seems to me to make a strong case for retention - at least for now. Perhaps it can be revisited in 6 months, when the disgruntled editor has moved on to other targets and the article contents will have stabilized.

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.