Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Clean Water 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 was keep rewritten version. Kimchi.sg 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Clean Water Agency

It's a clean water agency. It's in Ontario. Er.... That's it. Another article on some piece of Ontario administrivia from the pen opf WikiWoo (talk · contribs); the first three incarnations were speedied as copyvios. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Still reads as a copyright violation to me ... Brian 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Based on the total rewrite, I'll change to keep. It doesn't read as a copyvio now and I did my normal google checking for a copyvio and nothing turned up. Brian 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball

• Delete Speedy under A8/WP:SNOW (the site isn't making money from the content of its site, but it's not gonna pass the 7 day process, and is a waste of more time. Protect from recreation. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWhat's with all the cloak and daggars over this Crown Corporation? The Gestapo from Ontario Government is all over this. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why would the Ontario government have any interest in suppressing material that you have taken from one of its agencies' websites? Could it be that some people don't think that the agency is notable or that (as people have explained ad nauseum to you) you really can't post copyrighted material here? No. It must be a conspiracy. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete and salt As an apparent member of the "Gestapo from Ontario Government" (Chicago branch), I am sick of having to keep deleting this page as a copyvio, politely explaining to its author that you cannot take apparently copyrighted work (see Crown copyright#Canada), change a few words and publish it on Wikipedia and being accused of vandalism and censorship for my trouble. On the other hand, I think that articles on provincial agencies could potentially be kept if they have received enough coverage. This would mean that an editor who wanted to work on them would could go get books and articles and write a proper article, rather than just serially reposting slightly altered copyrighted material in an attempt to just barely get over the {{db-copyvio}} bar. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and IP ban This page is word-for-word cut and pastes from the official site. I can no longer assume good faith where this editor is concerned. No matter the name, the end result is always the same. --DarkAudit 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. OzLawyer, Commander of the Ontario Gestapo, 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely rewrote the article again trying to satisfy you all I barely touch the facts that are on the site and there is NO WAY this is copyright or a non notable organization.WikiWoo 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep, assuming the copyright problem no longer applies. I am somewhat surprised that there is no reference in the article to this agency's role in the aftermath of the Walkerton Tragedy. In fact, maybe I'll go put a little note about it in the article. Agent 86 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• The rewrite consisted of an error-riddled history that violated WP:CITE and WP:V, among others, but I've written some footnoted paragraphs on OCWA's history, and with Agent 86's contribution of the Walkerton piece, I think this article is now good enough to keep. --Gary Will 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• This is now a brand new article that is nothing like the original All the delete votes apply to the original article that is no longer there. The vote continuing makes no sense at all.WikiWoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• My vote is to Keep the new articleWikiWoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• WikiWoo, that might be true - but wait for an administrator to close out the AfD - you are not entitled to remove the AfD tag or close the AfD Brian 04:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball
• Reassess to keep providing all the good edits by others don't get reverted as government conspiracy to censor (undoubtedly WikiWoo will have a problem with some of the current and forthcoming edits, I'm sure). In that case, delete WikiWoo. =) OzLawyer 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments I guess I do wear a tin foil hat...after 30 years dealing with Regional Governments in Ontario people tend to get like that. I'm not the only one. It's a bizzar world of intrigue, complexity and covert operations going on of every conceivable kind, where the truth is usually stranger than any fiction, as the non-elected unsurp authority from the democrticaly elected representatives of the people by selectively managing Billions upon Billions of taxpayer's dollars in the exclusive hands of a couple of dozen people. I have a lifetime of personal experience and knowledge that can help to bring these diverse pieces of information together in a place that it can be a usefull source of reference information. Please don't be too critical of my efforts and I am trying to adapt and learn the rules. I know I am not a great linguist, but please try to work with the information I can identify and bring on board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Government agencies are encylopedic. The article does need some work, but that is not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above statement. Orangehead 17:15, 31 July 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.