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 delete. POV fork. If the salavagable content has been spun out of the main article then it does not need a redirecd and we are well rid of this. SPAs please not that wikipedia is not a forum to advance your opinions but a colaborative encyclopedia. If there is ongoing edit warrinbg in the main article then let me know or see semi-protection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Gatineau Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has serious COI, NPOV and copyright issues that render it unsalvageable as an encyclopedia article. The article was started by me as an uncontested split from Gatineau Park when the political content in that article added by one editor had dwarfed the geographic and facility description of the park. This article essentially describes the conflict between the National Capital Commission, who run the park and a critic group, the New Woodlands Preservation League (NWPL) and its subsidiary, the Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC). Since the split almost all the content has been written by one editor, editing under his own account and several IP addresses in the same series, who is a self-proclaimed member of the NWPL/GPPC. To impose his edits on the article he has engaged in repeated edit warring and reverting and has been blocked once for WP:3RR violations. As as an adjunct to the AfD nominations of AfD:New Woodlands Preservation League and AfD:Gatineau Park Protection Committee currently underway, I requested a review of this article by an independent admin, who has not edited this article. After familiarizing himself with the background issues his recommendation was: "Having reviewed this article (and related articles) I believe it has too many issues to resolve, it is just a POV spur of Gatineau Park. Large parts were copy and pasted from the parent article without attribution so rightly large sections should be deleted as copyright violation. If you add some of the unbalanced COI edits it is plainly a bit of a mess. It fails to give a balanced view of the events and those involved. I would suggest it should go to AfD for a wider community consensus." and "I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems." - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved admin's opinion or not, the bulk of the AFD nomination sounds dangerously close to "The article's messed up and needs a lot of work, let's just delete it instead", which is not a very good course to take on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a work in progress with no specific deadline for getting articles right. Almost every issue the nominator raises should be solved through editing the article, reducing it to a stub if necessary, rather than deleting it. The one reason to delete this article is if it's genuinely a POV fork, because indeed it is a problematic article forked off from a main article. Were that not the case, I'd say to keep this article and work on it. But as it is, this is a 48k subarticle for a 17k main article, which sets off the alarm bells. Still, I'm just afraid deletion is a non-solution here... trying to sweep a problem under the rug. Would people consider merging/redirecting this article back to the main article until such a time as size dictates we actually need subarticles? I.e. work on the main article until the history section is full of valid, undisputed sourced content of such length that it needs to be moved to a subarticle? I'm sorry if that sounds convoluted, but it seems like a better idea than just trying to solve this problem purely through deletion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Ahunt and I have worked on fixing the POV in this article for over a month, but the truth of the matter is that every argument in this article is a Gatineau Park Protection Committee/New Woodlands Preservation League (both articles in AFD) argument, added by a member of those groups (User:Stoneacres). Should this article really exist simply as a WP:SOAPBOX to push the GPPC's opinions? -M.Nelson (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, I only briefly skimmed through your comment before posting, but re-read again. I support the idea of merging any relevant information to the Gatineau Park article, but it would be difficult to judge what is notable and what is not, as so much of this article is POV arguments. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well uh, yeah, reading the whole thing would have helped. I'm just bothered by the idea of deleting an article because the current version has some POV issues. The thing to prove is that this subarticle is inherently problematic, rather than that the current version needs a lot of work that isn't being done at the moment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is twisting facts to suit his execution warrant. It's petty.

He claims that I have "consistently" edit-warred. Well, no. After he and Mnelson put me in their triple Arrr doghouse, I editted through discussion.

Besides, they have added the other point of view. And the article rests on rock-solid references. A genuine contribution to widespread knowledge on the issue.--Stoneacres (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gatineau Park. I make this recommendation as an outsider who only learned of this dispute today. By merge I think that at most two paragraphs could cover all of this. If you strip-out the POV-pushing there is some objective information on the dispute over the park boundary, and the strange status as non-National Park. Perhaps the editors could devote their energy to developing a NWPL website. However, Wikipedia must confine itself to reliable secondary sources, not primary source materials. Once all the primary material and Original Research goes, only two paragraphs worth are left. I hope that this could be done without having it snowball into a repeat of the present article. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, what liberties we take with knowledge ... The story related on the site, all referenced, is available nowhere else. To say only two parapgraphs would cover it is a featherweight argument. Racepacket is obviously too busy to examine the article closely before jumping to a rash conclusion.

• The above comment is the heart of the problem -- if the energy that was placed in the three articles had been invested instead in developing a non-Wikipedia NWPL website, there would have been a place on the web where Stonacres' entire viewpoint and documents would be available in full. The Wikipedia article could then cite to it as an External Reference. Someone who is not involved in the battle, perhaps User:Ahunt, could then write two paragraphs about the boundary problem and the non-National Park status and have that be a part of the Gatineau Park article. Absent non-local media attention and coverage, the NWPL and GPPC organizations do not warrant separate articles, but might receive passing mention in the boundary dispute discussion. We have three options: 1) Wait for the AfD outcome and continue to speculate on what the paragraphs would be while the merge vs delete vote is pending, or 2) Draft the paragraphs now on a subpage so that this debate can be productive and concrete, or 3) Give up and assume the outcome will be delete. The choice is up to Stoneacres. However, it appears the concensus is that the WP:SOAPBOX is not available as a third option going forward. Although NWPL and GPPC may be doing important work, Wikipedia is not the suitable place to articulate their viewpoint. Racepacket (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and are you all mad? Ahunt already created this article by splitting it; now you want to merge it again?

I nominate someone for a Wikki Yoyo award...--Stoneacres (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stonacres: This is a debate on the future of this article, not an opportunity for you to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article makes a strong case in support of the writer's goal rather than a balanced and objective portrayal of the topic suggested by its title. It makes one side of an argument and in so doing fails to meet the fundamental principle that articles must have a neutral point of view. It should be kept somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. Advocacy, even if the position advanced is worthy and desirable (who knows because we only have one side of this story) has no place in an encyclopaedia. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Rather than asking whether it can be made into something that has a place here, the question should be why try to change it into something it isn't. The changes it needs would change the whole nature of the article. Rather than asking whether a sow's ear can be turned into a silk purse, the question should be why try? It should go someplace else, it has no place here. --KenWalker | Talk 08:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Did you read the article? Did you even try to see that the opposing viewpoint is interspersed throughout?

Your comments are extremely subjective and inaccurate.

Bottom line, the questions that must be answered are: does the article provide accurate, verifiably sourced, unbiased information, and is it in the public interest to know these facts. The answer is yes on both counts.

Would publicly accessible knowledge of the issue suffer if this article were deleted? Clearly yes.

Whose interests would be served by deleting this article? Only that of the clique that wants to keep the public out of Gatineau Park.

If you want to further the exclusiveness of Gatineau Park, then go ahead and destroy knowledge. That would confirm that Wikipedia is a sham.

Reality is sometimes hard to accept, especially when the facts challenge the established groupthink.--Stoneacres (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article provides the alternate view from that positted by the NCC. Moreover, it provides exhaustive research and citations confirming something is wrong with Gatineau Park.

The public is entitled to know about this. The arguments for deletion are not at all convincing.

A few years ago, Queens University scholar Alissa Apostle said in her thesis that the history of the NCC has been erased and re-written. Does Wikipedia want to be an accessory to this continued destruction of knowledge? --Kingsmear (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Kingsmear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete as per nom, which included some of my comments after I reviewed the article. Most of the article was created with a copy and paste with not attribution so has GFDL copyright problems. Researching the subject as an outsider with no connections to Canada I found that the article also suffered from giving a non-neutral and in particular a NWPL/GPPC view of events. A lot of other organisations have been involved in the local politcs and campaigns but they do not appear in the article and any web search will find them. Just to confuse one of the organisations is the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition which has the same intials at the Gatineau Park Protection Committee. All of these organisations I am sure are doing a lot of good work although you would think it was all the the work of the NWPL. But in the end they are all campaigning on a local issue and rightly some of the more notable points should be included in the main Gatineau Park in a balanced couple of sentences as suggested by another editor. And as the SPA above has commented The article provides the alternate view from that posted by the NCC which is clearly a declaration of a POV problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It says it provides an alternate point of view. If you read the discussion thoroughly, it says the views of the GPPC/NWPL are interspersed with the NCC's views.

And for your information: the NWPL led the Coalition. It discovered a planned housing development, informed various similarly minded organizations of the problem, wrote all of the briefing notes, 98% of the press releases, and did most of the media relations. Had you read the above completely, you would have known this.

But I guess when you want to kill your dog, you have to convince yourself it has rabies ...

And MilborneOne and Ahunt seem to share an affinity for airplanes...

--Stoneacres (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and merge a few sentences in summary to Gatineau Park as discussed above. The article has been written by an editor with an admitted WP:COI, and has resulted in a POV WP:SOAPBOX attacking the NCC. Even though considerable effort has been made to keep this article NPOV, the article is still solely based on GPPC/NWPL arguments which are not notable. Perhaps one or two items should be mentionned at Gatineau Park, but the controversy of the park and NCC is not notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page. For comparison, Ottawa editors could consider the controversy over Lansdowne Live!, which has been a major source of debate in the city for over the past year, including many front-page news reports, yet does not have its own article (Lansdowne Live! redirects to Lansdowne Park). Even though a handful of news articles have mentionned "politics of Gatineau Park" issues (and mentionned GPPC/NWPL in passing), they are not notable enough to have their own article. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a weak argument. Arguments not notable? Specious as well. Only a handful of articles is wrong. Have you read all the ones -- 50 or so -- which talk about the GPPC/NWPL?

When you want to kill your dog, you try hard to convince yourself he has rabies.

A real little witch hunt. --Stoneacres (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneacres: The issue here is whether to keep this as a separate article, delete it or merge it. Regardless of this decision, Wikipedia will never satisfy your desire to present your perspective of the politics of Gastineau Park. Only a separate NWPL website can meet that goal. By necessity, Wikipedia presents the 10,000 ft high perspective, as filtered through secondary sources, while you want an article that will get into the weeds of detail based on primary sources. How can we avoid a repeat of the editorial disputes that have occupied your time since August? Racepacket (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket: I welcome your voice of reason. It has been almost non-existent in this discussion.

It's fine if Wikipedia doesn't satisfy my perspective entirely. However, if some good part of it is not presented, then all that is presented by the NCC is propaganda. If the nasty stuff isn't discussed, at least somewhat, then the public will be fed pablum. I'm sure a neutral point of view does not in any way mean sweeping embarrassing facts under the rug, or pulling the wool over the public's eye.

I realize that the full weight of my argument would be better suited to a web site. But Wikipedia has a moral obligation to present some of what I have pointed to. No one else has. And it is clearly in the public interest to do so, and in the interest of balanced knowledge of the issue.

Just deleting the Politics of Gatineau Park would be a form of censorship.--Stoneacres (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a contravention of WP:SOAPBOX. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all relevant content to the main article, which itself is not overly long and would benefit from the expansion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Copyright Violation

I don't understand Ahunt's quoting MilborneOne as saying the article violates copyright. Now, Ahunt is the one who copied and pasted the article from the Gatineau Park parent article. Is Ahunt, with MilborneOne, accusing Ahunt of copyright violation? And can someone explain how such cut and paste would constitute copyright violation, if its purpose was to "split" the article?

Is anybody out there?--Stoneacres (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there was unattributed text in Gatineau Park, which I inadvertently moved from that article into Politics of Gatineau Park when I performed the split. If I had realized that was the case I would have deleted it rather than moving it or edited it out after moving it, but I missed identifying that there was problematic text. The problem was only identified when User:MilborneOne did his review of the article on 17 November 2009, as quoted at the head of this article. Perhaps he can provide more details. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now come on. What part of the text was unattributed? Ahunt himself kept asking for references and I strove to provide all the ones he asked for. And more. No part of the text I provided is a copyright violation, since it was all researched, written, revised and written by me, with exhaustive requests for citations from Ahunt.

So, I submit that the copyright violation charge is completely bogus and unfounded.

What's going on here? Those who murder knowledge are guilty of crimes against conscience and humanity.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: You have been warned before several times about personal attacks and the requirement to be civil, including a last warning on the topic. An AfD is a debate not a "crime against conscience and humanity". It is no wonder that your questions don't get answered since answers just illicit more ad hominem attacks from you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt: not an ad hominem attack. A maxim expressing a universal truth. Read John Stewart Mill or John Milton. "A standing invitation to the whole world to prove it unfounded."

Far as I know, no one has been able or even attempted to refute the facts I have brought to public attention. Suppressing valid information is a crime against knowledge. Any encyclopedia worth its salt must seek to expand knowledge, not suppress it out of a bureaucratic and narrow interpretation of the rules.

You are quick to jump to conclusions to justify a point of view. --Stoneacres (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneacres: If I were to write an opinion editorial that is then published in a local paper and then write substantially the same content as a Wikipedia article, there would be a question as to whether the I still had the legal rights to the content when I contributed it to Wikipedia. I don't know if similar facts apply here, but If you wrote the passage in question without paraphrasing another document, then you can easily solve the matter, as indicated in WP:DCP. Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket: Far as I know, none of what I contributed to wikipedia was published elsewhere. I don't think your point applies here. And I'm still stymied about what Ahunt and MilborneOne mean by copyright violation. I can't see any such violation, and it is incumbent on them to explain/demonstrate/prove their accusation or to withdraw it. --Stoneacres (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that there was a copyright problem. I have not tried to compare this article against other online literature, and accept your word that it is all original. Racepacket (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Or if page is merged into Gatineau Park it should contain much of what is presented in the Politics of Gatineau Park section. As well, at least some of the pictures should be kept. They provide factual, unbiased information you won't get from the NCC. --99.246.2.69 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 99.246.2.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, content fork. Major nature reserves regularly have a storm of politics around them. This fork is now almost three times the size of the main article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An attempt to merge would be likely to lead to the same battle all over again. The Gatineau Park Protection Committee/New Woodlands Preservation League editors should recognise that they have a conflict of interest here and should devote their energies to setting up their own campaigning website. Any short summary of these issues in the main article should be done by a non-COI editor. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive: Gatineau Park is the only federal park that isn't a national park. This article explains why. As well, it explains the slew of problems affecting it, all of which is reliably referenced. So what if this fork is three times as long. That's not an argument. The key is: does this article provide readers with useful information? Clearly it does. It is not a soap box, it's an exposé of fact.

JohnCD: it's not clear what your opinion is. First you say delete; then you say, maybe merge, but only if non COI editors work on it. So, which is it?

Okay, so we've established that the copyright allegation slung by Ahunt and MilborneOne was unfounded. Now, as for NPOV, I believe that most of what I've written is fact, and as such it's point of view is neutral. And where there is a point of view it is attributed to the GPPC in quotations, and thanks to Ahunt's edits, to the NCC, Chelsea, etc. So the article offers balance wherever an opposing view has been uttered by other parties. As for COI, Wikipedia is clear: experts on a subject are not to be discouraged from editing, so long as their edits pass muster with other editiors. And, before Ahunt began arguing for deletion, he had participated in balancing this article, and approved several of my edits. In short, his reasons for deleting this article applied to the GPPC/NWPL, not this article.--Stoneacres (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my habit to make unfounded observations about copyright violation, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:COI. If it were not for these issues, this would be a fairly good article, it is well written, aside from WP:NPV, and referenced properly. I do think it needs to be rewritten with a NPV by someone without COI issues. Click23 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the second part of Click23's contribution. Re-write with contributions from various editors, to soften POV.Good material should be kept.--Ryanslane (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — Ryanslane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

MilborneOne: I checked out the page you referenced. It does not say material should be deleted, only that it be properly attributed. That's not at all the same thing.

Click23: you are saying two different things: delete or re-write. Which is it, and why don't you offer to re-write? I am sure Ahunt will keep an eye on things, as MilborneOne and MNelson will...--Stoneacres (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - MilborneOne and Ahunt: Please stop removing my label - the comments made above were mine, and I had forgotten to sign.

(Keep-' Or if page is merged into Gatineau Park it should contain much of what is presented in the Politics of Gatineau Park section. As well, at least some of the pictures should be kept. They provide factual, unbiased information you won't get from the NCC. --BudgeC (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — BudgeC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment on single-purpose accounts: I don't mean to act too eager in any way, but I noticed that the contributions (particularly edit summaries and pages edited) of two single-purpose accounts !voting here are awfully similar: Special:Contributions/Ryanslane and Special:Contributions/BudgeC (who claims to be Special:Contributions/99.246.2.69). -M.Nelson (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MNelson: I think you meant to say: "eagerly." Mind your adverbs.--Stoneacres (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.nelson: Actually it is a total of three SPAs making very similar comments so far, including User:Kingsmear Special:Contributions/Kingsmear. - Ahunt (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.