Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaughan Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. – Alphax τεχ 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Watch

Local politics website which appears closely connected to a highly biased, ongoing and virtually unkillable sockpuppet campaign relating to municipal political figures in Vaughan, Ontario (which is not a sufficiently large city that its local politics are clearly encyclopedia-worthy in and of themselves.) No evidence of genuine notability, and the article makes a subtle but unsuccessful attempt to couch an inflammatory statement about political corruption in just enough weasel words to make the statement seem more NPOV than it actually is. I think it's a delete, though feel free to prove me wrong if you disagree. Bearcat 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Expand So in other words you're saying the article is written with neutrality? Despite it being a controversial topic?

In the MOST recent edit to main Vaughan, Ontario page, you included Vaughan Watch under the external links as, and I quote, "Vaughan Watchdog website, unofficial". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaughan%2C_Ontario&diff=45683657&oldid=45678795

If they are important enough to be on that page, and are notable enough to be referred to (and is in fact) the Watchdog of Vaughan Council, surely that is evidence of "genuine notability"?

They are the watchdogs of the most corrupt city council in Canada. That makes them worthy of an encyclopedia article. See http://vaughanwatch.ca/ Skycloud 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Actually, no, I'm saying it's not written with neutrality — Wikipedia has no business describing any city council as "the most corrupt city council in Canada". The statement is neither neutral nor verifiable, and has no business being anywhere near a Wikipedia article, let alone in one. Bearcat 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not describing it that way, I am. The page itself is pretty objective... as you've noted Bearcat. Skycloud 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • No, the page itself isn't objective, and I didn't say that it was — I said the page is written in a way as to give off an illusion of being more objective than it actually is. Meaning it isn't neutral; it just wants people to think it is. Bearcat 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - The key here is, no one outside the political circles in Vaughan knows, or cares about this organisation. I believe the fact that User:Skycloud (a sockpuppet) refers to Vaughan as "the most corrupt city council in canada", proves my point that this group is biased and contravening WP:NOT by continuously using Wiki as a soapbox. pm_shef 03:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and nonsense --Deville (Talk) 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and nonsense --Ardenn 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-Vaughan Council has been noted as the most corrupt council in Canada by the Toronto Star and many other national publications. Vaughan Watch is the most often cited watchdog of Vaughan Council in the media, appearing in the Toronto Star between 5 and 10 times last year. See: http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/vaughancitizen/story/2857035p-3308590c.html

  • Delete, non-notable organization, website has no Alexa ranking [1] --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Over 700 hits on google. Many newspapers article in national publication over a 3 or 4 year period. That's notable. Skycloud 04:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only 134 unique Google results [2]. Also, what newspapers are you refering to? --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For Clarification Vaughan Council notes in its minutes in January 2004 the following: "Communication – Paul DeBuono, President, Vaughan Watch, January 20, 2004, forwarding editorials from the Toronto Star and the York Region Newspaper Group regarding the investigation into tickets issued to Mayor Michael Di Biase;"

This refers to the police investigation into why Di Biase had several traffic tickets 'lost' by the police station. This is just one reference allusion to corruption. See http://www.police.york.on.ca/psb/agendas/2004/january/jan21public.pdf

  • For Clarification Noted Toronto Star articles featuring Vaughan Watch and its President, Paul De Buono, found through google.

1. "Hand over Di Biase probe, York police told" Jan 16, 2004. Toronto Star. Description: ..."It's a general principle that a police force should not investigate itself," said Paul De Buono, a family-law attorney who started Vaughan Watch last year 2. "Police Clear Vaughan Officials" Toronto Star Story - 22-Nov-2004 by Phinjo Gombu and John Duncanson.

And why is any of this notable enough to be in an international encyclopedia? Items of purely local relevance do not belong here; this has already been clearly spelled out in both WP policy and AFD precedent. Bearcat 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has national significance, and that's enough for wikipedia. Skycloud 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For further clarification Vaughan Watch and its founder Paul De Buono not have appeared in many national newspapers over 3 years, but are present news items as well. See "Rental Tribunal Adjudicator Resigns": www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb. php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=001284

Above unsigned comment by User:Skycloud

  • Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 05:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Organization has been a catalyst for similiar organizations formed across Canada. Is the premier watchdog organization of the Province. VaughanWatch 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have proof that it's the "premier watchdog organization" I'm assuming? pm_shef 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication that this organisation is notable outside its hometown. Capitalistroadster 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep :*I think Bearcat is a sockpuppet. 69.198.130.82 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note, User:69.198.130.82 has made 6 edits, all on this page, or the talk pages of users involved in this discussion pm_shef 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know what sockpuppet means? I'm an administrator and have been around Wikipedia for years. The word applies to me in no conceivable way whatsoever. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's your point? You have probably made 20 times that many edits on this subject. Please note, that was not a personal attack. 69.198.130.82 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia AFDs are supposed to be a consensus of established users. New users who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up in an AFD with an agenda can be, and often are, excluded from the tally of opinion at the end of the process. Look up the phrase "gaming the system" if you don't understand why. Bearcat 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you can tell from my posts that I am the same guy as a month ago. As for the sockpuppet comment, I was just joking with you. Lighten up a bit when you're dealing with this Vaughan stuff or else you'll go crazy. The ridiculousness will hopefully end in Novemeber for a few of Vaughan's councillors. And maybe the Mayor too. 69.198.130.82 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if I'm in any danger of going crazy it's going to have a lot less to do with Vaughan politics and a lot more to do with certain Wikipedia editors who think their own personal view of Vaughan politics legitimates a six-week-long revert war protecting unencyclopedic trivia about lunches, biased POV edits and blatantly false accusations of vandalism against longstanding editors who are simply doing their job in keeping WP articles neutral and verifiable. Not that I'm naming any names. Bearcat 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotional for non-notable, local political group. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Luigizanasi 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per skycloud. Leotardo 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --maclean25 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vaughan Watch is a nationally-known organization is definitely incorrect. Peter Grey 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vaughan Watch and Paul DeBuono each get 2 Lexis/Nexis hits in the last two years related to the government of Vaughan. "Paul DeBuono" also pulls up some hits as a former Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal adjudicator involved in a tenant eviction dispute. Even if this is the same person, one person's crusade against an allegedly corrupt town government is not encyclopedic. Thatcher131 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat, Thatcher131. I'm thinking of two vaguely similar civic activist groups in Ontario communities which would absolutely merit Wikipedia articles: Citizens for Local Democracy in Toronto (defunct) and the Lanark Landowners Association in the Ottawa Valley (now the Ontario Landowners Association). How do they differ any from Vaughan Watch? Both of those had visible mass followings at regular meetings, organized large demonstrations, were led by or courted by prominent politicians, attracted persistent national media attention substantively discussing the organization, program and methods, etc. If Vaughan Watch has uncovered such corruption as claimed, I'm sure its time will come and an article can be recereated adding such history and sources. Samaritan 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vaughan Watch is certainly not nationally known. I doubt too many people out here in the east have even heard of Vaughan, let alone Vaughan Watch. Kirjtc2 19:07, 2 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.