Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 25 February 2007

Federal Commonwealth Society

Federal Commonwealth Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

DELETE

• It is not a registered organisation in any country.
• It does not publish accounts.
• It shows no evidence that it even exists outside cyberspace.
• It was written by the organisation itself.
• It does not provide any evidence that it is 'notable' or 'remarkable' in any way.
• Misplaced Pages should not be used to 'recruit' members to an organisation.
• There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email and the address of a canadian condo.
• When I tried to contact them regarding this issue on their website's forum, Several (although admitadly not all) provided responses which were very worrying, and used explicit insulting and vulgar language.
• The article provides no outside or neutral viewpoints.
• There are no outside or neutral references.
• This organisation has either roughly 200 or roughly 50 members(sources vary). This in my opinion is too few for a wikipedia article. RepublicUK 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• NPOV
• Non Notable
• It already was deleted once and someone put it back.RepublicUK 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - Please provide sources for, for example, its not publishing accounts. And why you believe the fact it doesn't publish contact details makes it non-notable. Here are the google search results, including a BBC reference. --Couter-revolutionary 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, did you research this at all RepublicUK? You said: "*There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email." But, when I enter the "contact us" section, this is what I found:

"Federal Commonwealth Society

30 Dale Avenue, Suite 1003

Scarborough, Ontario

M1J 3N4 CANADA"

Please research something before making false claims. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thats a residential address, also it is not for RepublicUK to prove NN it is for others to prove it is notable.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the points you made:

This is a private address, It is not registered to any organisation.

Without publishing its accounts it is not an official organisation, I do not have to prove that it is not publishing accounts, YOU have to prove that it IS publishing accounts.

It is not registered with the electoral authorities in any of the nations that it professes to be active in, all political organisations and not just political parties have to be registered.

Google is a search engine and so can't be used for referencing.

The only reference for it on the BBC website is in the 'action network' section and was written by the organisation itself and has not been updated for almost 3 years. The 'action network' section can be written by anyone and needs no proof or evidence that what has been written is true. RepublicUK 10:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do you know it is a private address, have you been there? "Suite 1003" sounds like an office to me. You have proposed it for deletion, you prove it doens't publish accounts. And yes, I too believe the proposal for deletion was in bad faith.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a private address because it is a condo.

You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.

• Keep. This is an organisation worthy of an article, particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites, etc. currently on wikipedia. I also get the impression that this nomination may have been in bad faith. An Edwardian Sunday 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What proof have you to say that "This is an organisation worthy of an article", it is not good enough to just state that, you must provide evidence, also on of the arguements to avoid during an AfD is "particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites" - provide evidence to prove notablility or else these words will just sound pretty hollow.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment.Just because there articles less notable doesn't mean that this should automatically existRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The organization has been noted in other online 'news' sources (generally unfavorably) including rumormillnews, irishunionism, and themonarchist. The article could use a more NPOV. - If it survives the AfD I'll work to provide that (Yes I know I should do so before, but I'm tired of working on articles that get 'flushed') - maybe someone else can make it more neutral while the article is being considered. Bo 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Blogs and internet forums do not satisfy WP:RS, its seems pretty much all of theGhits are for internet forums and mirrors.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You have not provided any evidence that it has been noted in the news.
• Comment. Less than 200 members makes an organisation unremarkable RepublicUK 15:03, 23

February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The United States Cabinet has only 15 members, is that unremarkable? Numbers aren't everything. Ben W Bell talk 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE No independent sources, Xyouknowyoulovemex 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this user has made one edit! An Edwardian Sunday 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep some independent sources include:

http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html

Comment This is a blog with no references to the FCS, It doesn't even have a single entry and hasn't been edited for 2 years.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/search/label/Churchill

Comment The only reference to the FCS is a very small link to a defunct website.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.delhiin.com/wiki-Commonwealth_of_Nations

Comment There is no reference to the FCS, there is just a link at the very bottom of the page to the FCS website. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=92732

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/links.html Bo 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment this is not a reference, It is just a website with a link to the FCS website without any info about it whatsoever.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.africancrisis.org/ZZZ/ZZZ_News_008690.asp another 'good one' Bo 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no evidence that this is anything to do with this organisation. It has a link to a website that has the same initials but a completely different name.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is exactly the same as the african crisis link. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

These are all blogs which are not independent sources.RepublicUK 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They seem to take different views on the organization, and aren't hosted by the same group. Perhaps I'm confused on what counts as 'independent source'. Bo 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They could have been written by anyone of youRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. These are not realiable sources.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This organisation has set the process in motion with regards to registering in the countries it is active. But it isn't registered yet. - User:81.151.155.249
• Comment.Then it can have a page when it is registered.

• Comment. Incidently How many of you are not members of this organisation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

• Comment. Wiki is not a crystal ball, if it becomes notable in future then an article should be written.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. RepublicUK appears to be a single-purpose account, with fewer than 50 edits here and a remarkable knowledge of things like checkuser requests (15th edit), vanity articles & references (), and AfD. He has made only two edits unrelated to this topic. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you implying?RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is because this is a new accountRepublicUK 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. RepublicUK seems to be saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Kittybrewster 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. But what is YOUR reason for keeping.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete.May become notable in future but is not notable at the moment and also there are no sources.--Vintagekits 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment.Almost all of the people that have voted are members of this organisation.RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You can not know that. I am not a member. It is irrelevant. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- seems to be an important movement within the Commonwealth. Astrotrain 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. On what basis are you making that comment.--Vintagekits 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It can't be an important movement within the commonwealth because nobody has ever heard of it

• Comment. Please don't make assertions you cannot prove. You do not know who has/hasn't heard of it or who is/isn't a member.--Couter-revolutionary 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It is for you to prove the Societies notablility not vice versa.--Vintagekits 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for this comment? A reference?--Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete.Non notable fails Misplaced Pages:Notability and its website looks as if it has been designed by someone who has created the project in their spare time. --Barry talk 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It has been mentioned that the address is a residential address, I would just like to point out that that isn't true. There are many businesses resident in the same building as the provided address, and it appears on the satellite images, and internet research to be an office building of some sort. Also the claim it only has 50 members is shot down by the graph at the bottom of the main page that clearly shows exactly how many members it has, looks to be around 200 members. Not a lot I'll agree, but more than 50. Ben W Bell talk 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Important Comment. I find it interesting to note that the OP's very first edit on Misplaced Pages was to this article, to add something . A couple of days later he added more information on it being controversial . This was then deleted by an anon user, but RepublicUK then altered the article again , seemingly knowing something going on about the organisation. The following day he nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry but I feel there is something else going on here, the OP expands the article, adds some bits that are removed and then nominates it for deletion. Almost all the OPs edits are to this article. Call me old fashioned but there could be something else going on here with this nomination, I think someone may be trying to make a point and this nomination is in bad faith and singleminded against his declared membership of Republic (whatever that may be). His contribs also seem to show a singleminded push against the organisation . Ben W Bell talk 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree, there are signs of sockpuppetry, however, that does not prove the Societies notability. Maybe you should focus on proving notability and then we can fish out if or if not he is a sock.--Vintagekits 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - The manner in which the above comments appear is a violation of POV in itself. Where in Wiki's rules does it say that an organisation must present accounts to anyone? It seems a credible enough organisation, which, one should add, is well-known at London's Royal Commonwealth Society. But more importantly, the nominator of this AfD has clearly come to Wiki with an agenda, as demonstrated when he set up his User page, where he announced: "I represent the UK organisation Republic which can be found at www.republic.org.uk. So really, should we believe anything he says here? Christchurch 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Right that all well and good but where is the proof of notability?--Vintagekits 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the nominator of this AfD is not required to challenge the opinions of each person who votes to keep (he has now posted 14 times on this page - his avid supporter Vintagekits at leats 7 times in the same vein). It is for Wiki editors to give their views and for the ajudicators to then decide. That is how the process works. Christchurch 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, actually that's not true, Vintagekits has it right. People on these discussions express their evidence and their opinion, the comments are not votes. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The comments, the manner of the comments, any evidence supplied and so on are taken into account by the admin who closes the debate, but the closing admin has the final say in the matter. There could be 15 people saying Keep, and 2 saying Delete, and it gets deleted on the basis of what is supplied, not how people believed they "voted". Just for future reference. Ben W Bell talk 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment.No, how wiki works is on proof! When you state something even just an opinion you should be able to back that up with proof. So far NOT ONE EDITOR who has stated "Keep" has provided EVIDENCE of notability.--Vintagekits 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep saying that, maybe it shall become true.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: seems verifiable and credible; has its own website and the subject itself is doubtless of great interest. Worthy of an entry in Misplaced Pages. 81.155.155.186 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep:fulfils Wiki requirements. Notable in its own way and in its objectives. Chelsea Tory 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment We have a lot of votes here calling this organization "notable," but there is zero assertion of notability in the article. If you're considering using "notable" as your reason for saying this article should be kept, then please review Misplaced Pages:Notability first to see what "notable" actually means in the context of Misplaced Pages. If the criterion here is notability, the article as it stands right now fails. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable: zero gnews archive hits, zero gbooks hits, zero scholar hits. Rather than assuring us that this is a notable organisation, without any supporting evidence, the case for inclusion would be better made by proving the notability of the organisation by providing supporting sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone. David Lauder 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates