Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Army.ca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Dorosh can be found to be maliciously attacking Army.ca on a vendictive course as a result of his being Banned from that army.ca[1]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,46743.0.html


Michael Dorosh has just proven the reason why he was banned from Army.ca. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.]The Army.ca site can stand on it's own credentials. It has over 10,000 Regular and Reserve force members, from various nations, as well as many retired military and civilian members and guests. It has recieved official sanction from the Canadian Forces as the site to refer to for questions pertaining to the CF. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloggins (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And your ad hominem attacks on his person aren't helping raise the level of discourse any. Regardless of what your personal opinion of Mr. Dorosh is, he has as much right as anyone (including you) to bring any article up for deletion debate here. If his argument is without merit, then it'll be dismissed ("closed as keep") and everyone can go about their business. I would suggest that you focus your attentions on the discussion at hand, and answering the very real questions about verifiability and sources for the article, as mentioned on the actual discussion page. -- nae'blis 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion on the Project Page goes into the ban and the reasons why this action is neither petulant nor vicious. I've talked to the owner of army.ca this morning via email and he understands the criteria for notability may not be met. However, if it can be demonstrated that people using the site as a reference is in itself an indicator of notability, that will benefit not just army.ca but the inclusion on Wikipedia of many other military websites that at present fail to meet the notability standards. Thanks for your contribution bloggins, I look forward to your constructive participation in the debate.Michael Dorosh 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)