Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress For Tomorrow

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 (Not very) Speedy delete g7, author blanked the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congress For Tomorrow

Congress For Tomorrow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The same editor just deprodded this article without explanation, as well, so again, here is the nominator's rationale: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note - original deletion nominator ( User:Chabuk ) is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edit.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One relevant Google hit and a Bravehost website do not a notable topic make. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Group isn't notable. GJ (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I prodded this in the first place, the leader Chris Erl, just had his page deleted last week. This article makes no claim to notability, no secondary sources, no media sources, etc, etc, etc. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - above User:Chabuk is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edits.

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGF. Oh, and deleteShawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years --Politicat (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

False. Fact is Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically motivated editing. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See articles Vaughan municipal election, 2006, Alan Shefman, Susan Kadis, Michael Di Biase and any article related to Thornhill and Vaughan and especially the articles of the candidates that ran against them. User:Chabuk got a front page article in the Vaughan Citizen newspaper for his politically motivated edits on wikipedia, his edits became an issue in this election that his father (who was running) and the former Mayor had to address. His father even went as far as to say publicly in the newspaper article that he does not condone his sons actions and has asked him to stop makes these edits. THATS THE FACT JACK!--Politicat (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let those of us who were actually here at the time, and actually dealing with what actually happened, decide who is and isn't biased. (Friendly hint: Chabuk wasn't the problem.) The factjack is you weren't here and don't know what happened, so can the attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• The New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and hence its political parties do not merit individual articles. Merge into NYPC article. And Chabuk cannot be accused of bias here unless he argues for the Liberal group to be treated differently than the others, which he hasn't done. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - As I said at the other page, While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy? Apparently the creator of the article has blanked the page. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2008 (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.