Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireweed Democracy Project

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 no consensus. bainer (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fireweed Democracy Project

Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely nn.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this would be an error. This is a genuine description of a cross-partisan political project in Canada. Fireweed's initial roundtable session was attended by a good cross-section of academic and political experts, and recorded and telecast by Canada's Parliamentary channel. This is an initial entry, which I am sure will be improved by others and over time, but the information is intended to be balanced and informative. User:Rick Anderson 02:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is actually Rick@asci.ca who has 8 edits to date. DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently it's not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Any time a group of cross-partisan experts/citizens get together, it is noteworthy.

• Delete does not establish notability. Danny Lilithborne 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Allow some time to establish notability? Currently, a cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion.Loom91 09:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia's for things that are notable, not for things that aren't, but might someday be. RGTraynor 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I sure hope we shall hear from some knowledgable Canadians in this discussion before people who have little first-hand knowledge summarily censor a legitimate political entry. The individuals involved in this are well-known, the fact that they have engaged in this discussion together is significant, the effort is legitimate, it is broadly-based, it is not partisan. But perhaps it is more fun to just lob judgement from a grand distance. User:Rick Anderson 19:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting again? DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep minus the exlinks, based on involvement by notable political figures. Gazpacho 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, Darth, changed the second vote to a comment. And yes, 8 edits, and will do more if needed, hope that this entry can remain here in a manner which conforms to wiki purposes and standards, feedback appreciated Rick Anderson 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keepany time a group of cross-partisan experts get together to make a better system, it is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherb (talk • contribs)
• Keep seems to me that this entry is a good introduction to a new project, there are some very notable Candian figures involved including Preston Manning, John Reid, Gordon Gibson and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.147.66 (talk • contribs)
• Keepseems like a worthy, noteable project. read
• Keepthis event happened, the people involved are important figures and it is an interesting project. william
• Keep I agree with the above. The information is valid and noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvision (talk • contribs)

Note: Beware rampant sockpuppetry. All of the "Keep" votes after Rick's comment are the users' first edits to Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, plus WP:NOT a soapbox. Sandstein 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This notability business is silly. Wikipedia is not limited in space like Britannica. Only 2 Questions should be asked when keeping an article: 1. Is it verifiable? 2. Will anyone outside the project ever come here and type in the title looking for information.--God Ω War 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately, that's not the case God of war. There's server space, and server load issues. There's copyright issues. As well, your question number 2 is essentially notability: if nobody will ever come to see it, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 17 April 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.