Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency

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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency

• The subject of the article does not exist. Joshuapaquin 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - see CSIS for Canada's intellegence agency. Tawker 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and per above. Ardenn 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I was bold and redirected to Canadian Security Intelligence Service moink 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be deleted, NOT redirected. The Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service doesn't exist at all. So redirecting is giving incorrect information, that the names are interchangeable. --Dogbreathcanada 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, boy. This link and this one, for two, both confirm that an agency of this name has been proposed for creation, most recently in the Conservative election platform. Yeah, as in the one they just won on. Which means there's a distinct possibility that this will exist within a few months. I'd need to do some more research, but this may very well be keepable. Bearcat 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the article to make the actual status of this more clear and more encyclopedic, and to provide some external link support. I grant that since it doesn't actually exist yet, it may still strike some people as a delete, but it isn't a hoax or a wild figment of someone's imagination, either — it was explicitly proposed in the election platform of the very party that now forms the Canadian government. So, in all likelihood, the government will at least try to create this within the next few months. Bearcat 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and the legislation to create it could be defeated in the very weak House or by the Senate. Ardenn 07:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A fact which the article, as currently written, already makes quite clear. I don't think that makes it inherently unencyclopedic; the fact that they're going to try legitimates an article, as long as that article doesn't conflate "proposed" with "done deal" the way CelebritySecurity's original draft did. Bearcat 07:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not forward-looking to consider a perennial proposal for the creation of this agency, which has been discussed at some length in .ca .gov ... especially since it's notable by its absence -- Canada is one of very few countries with no foreign intelligence service. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Until the new government actually takes official action (like, you know, actual legislation) it's just political vaporware (or maybe "vapourware"). --Calton | Talk 15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyrstal Ball Paul Carpenter. 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: relevant portion of Crystal Ball:

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.

While there is 'well-documented speculation', it is not "almost certain to take place", nor is the planning and notability anywhere comparable to the US election or 2012 Olympics. -Joshuapaquin 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Ardenn et al Pete.Hurd 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is something that was proposed by the party which is now in power. We have lots of articles on other things that were proposed but not created (Strategic Defense Initiative, New Columbia, etc), so why not one on something that has been proposed and may be created? - Jord 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because all there's been is the "proposal". In the SDI case, there was notable funded research. In the New Columbia case, there has been repeated legislation. For "CFIA", there's only been a campaign promise. That's not enough to be encyclopedic. I think it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation or an Order-in-Council, but we have no way to know if that's going to happen (Canadian governments occasionally do not follow through on all their promises). -Joshuapaquin 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You say "it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation", I point you to this piece of Canadian legislation that was not passed. - Jord 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of legislation that's passed or at least gone up for a floor vote. I should have mentioned that. I'm trying to find out if anything happened with this bill (c-409); if it actually got put up or down, then I think you might be on to something... if however it died on the order paper, and hasn't since been reintroduced, I'd have a hard time thinking of it as encyclopedic.

I poked around in databases of Canadian dailies, and while there's some coverage of the introduction of the bill by Pratt, I can't find anything on its resolution. Anyone know what went down with it? -Joshuapaquin 04:37, 17 February 2006 (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.