Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadaka.net: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 5 March 2006

Canadaka.net

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article was de-prodded without comment. Initially prodded as appears to fail WP:WEB. James084 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails to meet any guideline setforth in WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, at all. Not even barely. --Dogbreathcanada 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was left on Talk:Canadaka.net by PeterFinn. I am reposting here as it is only fair to have the original submitters comments listed. James084 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a US citizen and California resident who joined Canadaka.net as a member about a year ago. I've since donated US$100 to help keep the site running. It is not a pay-per-view site and the owner, Trevor May, is subsidizing the site as a labor of love. I posted the site when someone mentioned it was not on Wiki and the fact that the site has been noted on CBC & CTV as having a measurable influence on the recent election and the Gomery affair (discussion of the affair was banned in Canada but this site stood up for free speech by posting links to US sites where content could be found). I'll be happy to learn about Wikifying the page and I will take responsibility for it. But I will also stand by my premise that not only is the site notable (at least in Canada) it is acknowledged as having an influence outside of the site itself. Delete the item if you must, but the site will continue to grow and it will play a greater role in the next issues facing Canada: a new defence policy, oil sands, US trade, and Parliamentary and Quebec Separatism elections.

Visit the site and check out the forums before making a decision. It is a serious site and the discussions are quite real. Thanks, Peter.

Keep The site has been featured on CTV and radio stations across Canada. One of the largest Canadian forums on the internet. If these sites can be on Wiki surely Canadaka.net can. Vive_le_Canada, Canadian Democratic Movement, Rabble. Also someone is going around Wiki imposing as me with the username "TrevorMay". This is NOT the Trevor that owns Canadaka.net. I have emailed wikipedia to see if they can do something about this person.
Keep For all of the above stated reasons. Please ignore the trolls and imposters. TrevorMay 00:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an imposter on the web, arrest that log in! http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=262511#262511

--The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Delete This place sux, if you question the liberal's you won't last a week JackassCKA 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad, then go make your own site TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Clearly CKA qualifies due to the extensive CTV coverage, therefore you must keep it. TrevorMay 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 --[[User:The man with one red shoe|The man with one red shoe]] 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)
 *'''Delete''' This place sux, if you question the liberal's you won't last a week [[User:JackassCKA|JackassCKA]] 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
+**Too bad, then go make your own site [[User:TrevorMay|TrevorMay]] 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
+*'''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.'''  Clearly CKA qualifies due to the extensive CTV coverage, therefore you must keep it. [[User:TrevorMay|TrevorMay]] 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)