Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers Union

Add links
Source: 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 was Delete. socks ignored. RS, V, etc Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Panhandlers Union

Ottawa Panhandlers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)

Non notable union. Seems like an Industrial Workers of the World subgroup of little notability. Few real mentions in conventional news sources with one Ottawa Citizen op-ed piece. I consider the article to be a soapbox for something that a few anarchists think is a good idea. Halting traffic on Rideau Street and harassing shop owners does not confer notability -- Samir 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. IT is notable for being a success in the organizational efforts of the IWW in Canada and around the world. Transcona Slim 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time a group of people with a political axe to grind have gone after the Panhandlers' Union article. The irony is that the Panhandlers' Union was just in the media -- again -- as a result of someone at Ottawa City Hall vandalizing the Panhandlers' Union article, as revealed by the Wikiscanner. I suspect that the person responsible for nominating this article for deletion may in fact not only be the same person who vandalized the article (on behalf of which politician I wouldn't hazard a guess) but also the same person who has been posting death threats on city streets about the union's current organizer (see: http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3216/0000999ok3.jpg).

For those who may not be aware, the Panhandlers' Union in Ottawa has been featured in dozens, perhaps hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, and television interviews. At least one article regarding the Panhandlers' Union was syndicated internationally and became the Canadian Press "strange story of the week."

I suspect that this AfD is part of an ongoing, organized attempt to attack the Panhandlers' Union and its organizers. SmashTheState 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's a big conspiracy against people who beg for money in Ottawa. And the guy named "SmashTheState" clearly has no agenda here. Where are these news stories again? -- Samir 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The burden of proof is on you to prove you aren't attacking this article because of your political views. Smashthestate does have strong views but he has barely contributed to this article. The only changes he has made are minor fact corrections. The real bias of Wikipedia is the class bias. Do you expect us to have 100 panhandlers come on and vote to keep this article? I am the main contributor to this article. I have just rewritten the article and added more references to the Panhandlers Union from various news outlets. I somehow doubt you'll be satisfied.--Apples99 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Uhm, no, the burden is on you to show that this is
Notable. The sources are 3 in indy newspapers and one in some anarchy multi-lingual service. One's written by Jane Scharf. Seems like a local Ottawa phenomenon worthy of mention in Ottawa newspapers, but not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. -- Samir 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I, personally, have given dozens of interviews to print media, television, and radio. Amazing as it may seem, not every media story is archived on the Intertubes. I can think of a half-dozen off the bat which ARE, but I resent very much being forced to spend hours of my time hunting through media archives for them for no better reason than preventing what amounts to a bad-faith campaign of harassment by someone who doesn't like the politics of the IWW or the Panhandlers' Union. SmashTheState 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I've read and understood of the article, I am leaning towards "delete". But, before that can any supporters of this article explain to me with some degree of clarity what this thing is. I hardly can understand a word of the lead. Sarvagnya 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or massive rewrite. Right now this is a long rambling POV essay. Would like to add before anyone comes after me. Talk to me here about this not on my talk page. Ridernyc 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All references in this article either lead to broken links, forums, or a website of questionable notability/neutrailty. Ridernyc 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Re: Samir's comments in the larger discussion, the question is not and never has been of giving every shop of the IWW its own page. The question is of preserving a single page bearing on a group that has had national as well as local Canadian media coverage, and which has direct bearing on the bumpy ride (to put it nicely) of Ottawa's mayor - presumably a notable figure himself, no? This union shop has generated a great deal of discussion, as well as sympathy and hostility, in Ottawa and abroad. It has even provoked vandalism of its wiki page from someone within the mayor's office. If the union shop is of so little import, why is the city going after it? Here are some links to start with, there are others: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=615a7936-caaf-4613-b676-d5635bdb0790 http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=955 http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/brief.aspx?iIDArticle=2828 Feldsparo 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, number one that you cite is an op-ed piece by a local panhandler, and numbers 2 and 3 are pieces in tiny and very alternative media. This does not meet
WP:N, nor is it accurate to say that there has been national and local Canadian media coverage based on these cites and the ones in the article. -- Samir 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It is an op-ed piece printed in a major city newspaper, so one would think that it refers to a hot button issue in that city (otherwise why print it?). And the Ottawa Xpress, which is available on practically every street corner, boasts a large readership, and is Ottawa's major arts/culture newspaper, is neither "tiny" nor "very alternative" if honestly assessed. Feldsparo 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- How many times has someone come along and tried to delete this entry? Is this the third time? Fourth? I don't know about the rest of the planet, but in Ottawa this particular union is getting a lot of press. --Nik 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- This is news in Ottawa. 70.49.133.158 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident — 70.49.133.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP -- This article is invaluable to Ottawa activists. 99.224.75.237 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 99.224.75.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment if it is news in Ottawa provide links to references.Ridernyc 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesnt seem notable. Sarvagnya 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People actually FROM Ottawa have repeatedly mentioned here that the Panhandlers' Union is often in the media. Not every media outlet happens to archive their material on the Web. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the Panhandlers' Union, I know this to be the case. There is NOTHING in the Wikipedia guidelines which states references have to be electronic or even print. It is unreasonable to totally ignore television and radio references. These references are not in the article itself because, since the media itself is unavailable via the Web, such citations would serve only the purpose of protecting the article from deletion by people with a political axe to grind. It should go without saying that the Wikipedia articles should not HAVE to be designed around and for the explicit purpose of self-preservation. The fact that it's necessary in this case when numerous people have assured Wikipedia's editors that the union is often in the local media reveals that certain people are here only to use the article as a weapon to attack the organization. SmashTheState 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide us with newspaper/radio sources. Those are perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia. In fact, many of the articles I write contain references from books, magazines and newspapers — not online sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- How many KEEPs do I have to put here for you guys to understand. The reason that the corporate press is ignoring this is because of conservative right-wing influence on people who want to delete this article. I know for a fact that alternative Ottawa media like Metro and Ottawa X-Press have written at least 3 articles on it, and there is also one major article in Ottawa Citizen. Also like Apples says Andrew Nellis (even if he didn't talk about Ottawa Pandhandlers Union) was on CFRA and in Lowell Green's book. I know it doesn't meet your mainstream standards but this is clearly a major event that is shaking Ottawa even if the media isn't covering it. The reason it should be on Wikipedia is to fight the prejudices of the mainstream even if there has been little coverage! Pro Smith 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.139.29.235 (talk • contribs) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

again wikipedia is not a soapbox. If it's a major event provide me links to references from notable sources. Stop telling it to me, show it to me. Ridernyc 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, how many keeps have you put on here? -- Samir 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That violates
meatpuppets to violate rules is not tolerated. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You know damned well it was a rhetorical device, meaning "How many times do I have to tell you?" Now you'll try to claim that all the "keep" votes are sockpuppets. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone here that you've nominated this article for political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia or the notability of this organization. SmashTheState 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that almost all of the keep votes here are coming from IPs who just happened to make their first edit on Wikipedia here. It's clear that that there's sockpuppetry, or that someone is telling others to vote "Keep" in this AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "sockpuppetry" going on. As has been mentioned here before, there is bias built into Wikipedia. The people who regularly edit Wikipedia tend to be computer nerds. Computer nerds are a self-selecting and very narrow segment of the population, one which has a distictive point of view -- one which is actively hostile to both the Panhandlers' Union and the IWW in general. This has been established over and over again among those of us who regularly deal with attacks on organized labour articles here on Wikipedia. In this case, the people who actually have the most expertise to state whether the Panhandlers' Union is notable (that is, the local Ottawa activist community and the larger labour community as a whole) are taking time to vote on the issue in a medium they don't use enough to warrant a user account. If you're going to argue that only the specific group of people who contribute large amounts of time to Wikipedia are qualified to judge notability, then you are flying in the face of not just the stated goals of Wikipedia but logic and reason itself. I refuse to accept that the people best able to judge notability are the Asperger and OCD shut-ins who comprise the majority of the Wikipedia "community." SmashTheState 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you of our
conflict of interest, since this is an organization that you are a part of. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't make any personal attacks, I made some very generalized (and accurate) attacks against the heaviest contributors to Wikipedia. In any case, it is inaccurate to say that notability should be immediately obvious to everyone. There are literally thousands of entries involving, for example, physics and chemistry which I have never heard of -- and neither have you. The mere fact that a random Wikipedia editor has not heard of a specific chemical compound or sub-atomic particle does not make it non-notable. Likewise, it is not reasonable to demand a union of panhandlers (this in itself makes it notable; how many unions do YOU know of for panhandlers?) be immediately identifiable to people all over the planet for it to be of significant note. Yes, it must be notable, at the very least, in its own field. Numerous people from the Ottawa region or the activist and labour communities have appeared here to tell you the OPU is notable. Your demand that I somehow produce the dozens and dozens of television and radio interviews representatives of the OPU have done is not reasonable. No other article is held up to such scrutiny. It is not outrageous for me to suspect there is political bias at work here, either conscious or unconscious. SmashTheState 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that if you haven't heard of a subject, then it's not notable. I said the notability of any article should be apparent after reading the article. Instead of saying that I'm over-scrutinizing this article, just produce some more legitimate sources.
WP:BLP are serious policies, and if you can't show that you can write an article using sources that satisfy these two policies, then I don't think the article should exist. Also, the fact that a panhandler union exists does not make it notable. Form an organization that has never existed, and it's notable? It's unique, but that does mean it meets Wikipedia's notability policy. This matter would be much easier resolved if you actually granted my requests. This AfD is about this article. It's not about any other articles. Don't say I'm over-scrutinizing when you fail to answer my simple requests. These are Wikipedia policies, and I'm only Wikipedia policy to support my arguments. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you read what I wrote? I posted the list of all the news outlets in Ottawa which covered/covers the OPU. I forgot to mention that the op-ed article written by one of the OPU was written in response to an article in the Ottawa Citizen which is no longer available online. The original article was syndicated a week after its release. It was featured in many of the Can-West newspaper including the [Winnipeg Free Press]. Instead of screeching about the rules like a Wikipedia Admin cliché User:Ridernyc why don't you actually read the articles or learn something about Ottawa?--Apples99 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - the Ottawa Panhandlers Union is a known organization in Ottawa and within a community of street people across the country. Regardless of political biases about whether or not you think this is a desirable organization, it is active, has consistently attracted coverage in community media, and is certainly worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.24.109 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.24.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again references please. Ridernyc 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being told by people who LIVE HERE that the Panhandlers' Union is notable. You're some random person -- apparently from New York -- who is voting on an organization which isn't even in your *country*, let alone your community, who is being told by people who LIVE HERE that the organization is notable. Every time an issue around panhandling and the legal issues surround it comes up in Ontario, it's the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union which gets called for comment by the media. As I have stated over and over again, not every media outlet archives every article. I have been interviewed a least a half-dozen times by CBC Television alone -- the Canadian national television agency -- and you won't find a single one of those interviews archived for your viewing pleasure. I am at a loss to explain why people who actually live in Ottawa with direct knowledge of the Panhandlers' Union and the media accounts it generates are obliged to prove to you, a total stranger with no knowledge of the subject, what is completely obvious to everyone here in the community. SmashTheState 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't think there's any set bar for how notable something has to be before it can be included on wikipedia. But first, the article exists. Second, it's been covered by televised and print media. Not all IWW affiliates have been covered by their local media. However, if any organization does something newsworthy enough to be covered multiple times by news outlets and someone takes the time to write an article about it, I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't running out of paper, nor is notability exclusive to US media or non-local media. If anything about this article can be solved through edits, that's what should happen, not deletion. Drvoke 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Drvoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • There is a bar determining how notable the subject is. See
    BLP violations. My concern has yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You should have enough to sustain the article. I'm stressing reliable sources because there are clear
    neutral point of view issues in this article. Blogs, op-ed articles, forums are not reliable sources. A number of the links you posted don't exist. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
there are also some misleading ones. one link says metro news Ottawa and leads to a blog. And having pointed that out I know leave the debate, since I have searched for references myslef, and I have asked for references multiple and I get nothing but excuses every time. I think it's clear there are no notable references for this. Ridernyc 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Metro News article. It exists but that link to the blog is the only online source for that article. I have the original hard copy and I'm going to reference that with the date, issue number and author. If you're not convinced you could always call up Metro News or email them asking for this particular edition.--Apples99 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If the Metro News article exists and you have the original hard copy, just post the date/issue so that it can be tracked down and confirmed. Furthermore, that news organization keeps PDF archives of their paper on their website [2]. References need to properly identify their source by providing enough information for users to get hold of the source without relying on blogs - in this case, you need to at least provide the issue and page of the article in question. It's great if you can get an online version, but you want the "official" PDF over a blog posting (and it also looks bad when the reference in question says it's from Metro news rather than being a blog.) --Sigma 7 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there are no "reliable" sources that meets your definitions. We have about 10 articles in media that you call "alternative" on top of my op-ed piece in the Citizen and that easily should suffice. Also we live in the city and we are telling you this is a major movement that is dramatically altering the way labour is organized in Ottawa. Listen to the people. But you'll keep on fighting with useless "facts" like the City Journal article didn't even talk about the Panhandlers Union. It talked about Andrew for Christ's sake. I also used the Wikiscanner on the person who nominated this for deletion and found that he is using computers from Ottawa Police Service and Ottawa City Hall. I am not surprised about this political agenda which I am sure is coming from instruction from mayor O'Brien's office. It is Staff Sgt. Samir Bhatnagar who has been a scourge against the street people in the downtown core. I am convinced that this is the person who is trying to delete the article. He is also targeting me in specific because I am from Bangladesh heritage. The union has upward of 34 members now and we will not be stopped by the fascists who are trying to suppress organzied labour and free speech. Pro Smith 59.139.29.235 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — 59.139.29.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am sure that what Proshanto has uncovered is correct! and we should be applauding him. The deletion of the panhandlers union is part of an organized campaign from municipal council and Ottawa Police Services to smear Andrew's name due to his involvement in Ottawa Copwatch. Recently there have been posters placed on Rideau Street with Andrew's picture and a gun pointed in his mouth that are related to this same campaign of harassment. I am also certain that Sergeant Samir Bhatnagar who was the particular member of Ottawa Police Services to target Proshanto last year was none too happy to help out by putting this article for deletion. Also it looks like the wikipedia administration is trying to stifle opinion on the matter. Proshanto was unfairly blocked from participating here by wikiadministrator Nishkid64. Does anyone know where we can appeal this???

Stop
WP:MEAT). The rules apply to everyone, and no one will be excluded. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Isn't the fact that you deleted Proshanto's comments and blocked him proof enough that there *IS* a conspiracy? You're sure acting conspiratorial. This isn't the first time the OPU article has been attacked by someone at CITY HALL. This time we just happened to find out it was an anti-panhandler sergeant. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is reaction to all this isn't out of the ordinary. Remove the ban on Proshanto and keep this article!--Apples99 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I blocked Proshanto for violating Wikipedia policy (I have stated it already; see
WP:MEAT). Also, Samir deleted Proshanto's comments because he was being accused of being someone he's not. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It was obvious to everyone and even pointed out to you that Proshanto's comments were rhetorical but you took them literally. He was asking "how many times do I have to post here to prove to you that this article should be kept?". He was not saying that he had posted multiple times. And you had no proof of this anyway. You just banned him arbitrarily in the full spirit of Wikipedia. I have no doubt it was to erase his comments about Samir. As for his comments on Samir I will be mirroring them on my page. I find it disturbing that you claim to know his real identity when your talk page claims you're from Washington, DC and his IP is located in Ottawa. Maybe you're both cops. It wouldn't surprise me. --Apples99 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
First of all, Proshanto said this "and so what if I posted multiple times "keep" here! it's right wing "puppets" of the city like you that are ruining organized labour in the city of Ottawa. Damn right I'm telling people to come here and put their votes down in order to protect free speech from fascists like you." Read
single-purpose accounts and IPs who have come here just to vote in the AfD. Clearly, someone's telling others to create an account, or vote on this Afd with their IP. Also, I've never met Samir in real life. I have talked to him on a number of occasions on Wikipedia, and outside of Wikipedia, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP. This article provides basic information about the Panhandlers Union in Ottawa. This organization is notable, both in the mainstream and alternative Ottawa and Canadian media and among community organizations and activists in Ottawa and Ontario. It is the only Canadian organization of its kind, and while small, it provides a valuable window into an initiative that has street people organizing themselves in the face of a hostile mayor, hostile media, hostile law and courts system. I am concerned by the reference fetishism I see in this debate. The number of citations available online should not be a criteria for deleting valuable information such as this entry, particularly from an online encyclopedia whose goal is to be open and accessible to all. Mooremedia 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Mooremedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. In general,

notability criteria. I would point out to the single supporter with the many accounts that this is not a vote, and that her personal attacks and empty rhetoric make it more likely, not less likely, that people will be inclined to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable enough for me. Murderbike 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feel that notably has been proved through the listed media sources. We have two editors repeating the same arguments despite contradictory evidence. I am from the US, have been to Canada only breifly, yet have heard of the OPU numerous times. Of course word of mouth, really a much truer judge of notability than corporate owned media, could never meet the standards you're seeking to judge by. Joseph_Lapp 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific policies on Wikipedia regarding
WP:BLP, among other things. An article must meet these policies. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • How much more notable or reliable does it have to get?! Victims of the System A front page article in a local newspaper. The article also featured an editorial on the class war relating back to the front page article. The main article was several pages long in print form and contained many pictures of organizer/delegate Nellis. Are you from Ottawa? No? Then you aren't qualified to judge the merits of this article. Panhandling was recently a municipal election issue in Ottawa and remains a hot button issue in the capital. I don't expect outsiders without any knowledge of Ottawa or even Canada to understand this. If you aren't qualified to discuss the issue of organized labour, issues relating to Ottawa or poverty issues don't do it. As SmashtheState said, he has no knowledge of unusual chemical compounds but that doesn't make him qualified to assess the quality of an article on that subject. I agree fully. Stop shrieking about verifiability Nishkid64 and start making constructive suggestions on how this article can be kept. That is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? I see more references here on this page than there are on most useless pages which aren't targeted for deletion at all. So it begs the question again: Why this article?

I dug up this article from Centretown News (Odd isn't it how some of my references actually have entries on Wikipedia but still aren't notable). This article mentions Nellis and the panhandlers Union. More notability for you: Panhandling emerges as a top safety issue. This is also proof that panhandling is indeed a hot button issue in Ottawa. --Apples99 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Another article from Centretown News. Homeless art vendors stir opposition. This isn't to be confused with an article which appeared in August in the Centretown Buzz about Nellis, the OPU and CopWatch. Are we notable yet? But restricting people to certain areas would rid other areas of the cultural contribution of the vendors, says Task Force member Andrew Nellis, who is also the organizer of the Ottawa Panhandler’s Union. Nellis says he sees the proposal as a replacement for panhandling, and to a way to help get people off the streets --Apples99 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)— Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What is wrong with you people? Centretown news is a local paper in Ottawa published by Carleton University and has more than 7000 readers. Just because it is given away for free you are discounting it. Same with Cityjournal, with over 5000 readers. Just because its free doesn't mean that it's "unreliable". Just because Jane Scharf wrote the articles in the Dominion doesn't mean that it's unreliable. I have unearthed evidence here of a conspiracy involving Ottawa Police Services deleting this article and you wikiadministrators are colluding with them. Andrew has been working hard getting people on the internet to come here and vote this deletion down. This has to count for something! I myself have put down at least 7 votes here because you don't seem to understand that this is a major movement. So what if the sources don't reference the panhandlers union. So what if I'm just a homeless guy who can't walk who grew up in the ghettos of Blackburn Hamlet. Supporting the establishment like this is a disgrace to Ottawa. Andrew is a true hero for the working man. He has gotten so many people on the internet to come here and vote to keep this article. I have been trying to get the street people of Ottawa to come here but there is so few access to free computers. So just because there are no "RELIABLE SOURCES" as defined by you doesn't mean that this shouldn't be deleted! Just because there are no CONVENTIONAL MEDIA covering this doesn't mean that the people are not talking! We are notable! We have over 34 members. I am writing to CJOH TV and telling them about Bhatnagar and O'Brien colluding in this matter. Pro Smith 62.149.18.100 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)— 62.149.18.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to hear any nonsense that I'm censoring you guys. I have repeated myself a number of times that Proshanto Smith violated Wikipedia policy on
meatpuppetry. He admitted to his violations. This is a blockable offense, as is block evasion. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment to Pro Smith: Are we supposed to include every itty-bitty detail on Wikipedia? News coverage does grant notability. My town newspaper has 10,000 readers, and if there's some union there that's creating some sort of hubbub, I still would not it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nishkid64 is acting more and more like a cop. The fact is that your town DOESN'T have a panhandlers union. The Panhandlers Union is completely unique in the world. There's nothing like it anywhere else. It's notable because of this uniqueness. If there were panhandlers unions in every city I'd understand your ridiculous argument but there isn't. You deletionists are pissing me off. There are articles on every Star Trek character that ever appeared on TV. There are articles on stupid Star Wars aliens and Pokemon characters. Why don't you go delete those articles? If anything belongs in an encylopedia it's stuff from the real world. That being said, this article then has the advantage over 1000s of other articles. I wonder if the Panhandlers Union will become notable according to you once this edit war is covered in the Ottawa news. It was already discussed once before on CBC Radio. Andrew Nellis has appeared as a guest on the CBC Radio show 'All In A Day as well as Ottawa Morning. Stop trolling! This is notable and you do have a political axe to grind.--Apples99 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — Apples99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Delete per
    MySpace, and is not meant to be a "home" for activist organizations. [3] --Sigma 7 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete: Not notable, also badly written. Suva Чего? 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't really know much about the IWW but it looks like there is a sufficient number of people, many from Ottawa itself, who believe it is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Perhaps needs some editing however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.212.201 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) — 81.86.212.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - Google search reveals enough nonpartisan reliable sources to meet notability, some of which mention further TV coverage not available on the web (not to mention hundreds more partisan sources covering the union). ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say it show it, links please. Ridernyc 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds more? I think you're just referring to Google hits (which has been proven to be a faulty indicator of notability). If you remove the wikipedia mirror links, there's actually only a handful of websites at all who mention "Ottawa Panhandlers Union". Nishkid64 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We keep getting drive-by "deletes" from people who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject being discussed, which is par for the course on Wikipedia, but looking at the user pages of people who are posting "keeps" reveals they all have an interest in labour politics and activism. Should this not tell you something? I've used the example of chemistry and physics, in which it would not be expected for a sub-atomic particle or chemical substance to get a lot of (or ANY) media coverage, yet be notable within its own field. Even dismissing the fact that there has been large amounts of media coverage of the Ottawa Panhandlers Union, since certain people seem curiously blind to any evidence of it, it is STILL notable WITHIN ITS OWN FIELD. You would be hard-pressed to find an anti-poverty activist who has not at least heard of the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Since some of you folks gaming the system seem so fond of quoting Wikipedia policy, might I refer you to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia? SmashTheState 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also keep getting drive-by "keeps" from people who don't know a thing about Wikipedia. Also, the policy you cited doesn't mean anything if other policies like
WP:NOTABILITY aren't met. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
They don't HAVE to know anything about Wikipedia to know the OPU is notable in their community. This is part of the problem. You have this axiomatic belief in the back of your mind that knowledge of Wikipedia confers general expertise in every subject area. This is not the case. To make reference to the same section you quote,
WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Since it appears to me that you're moving the goalposts back every time someone finds new media references for you, I'd like to get a firm statement of what you believe an adequate number of references looks like. Much of the coverage is now very hard to find, since it is not archived on the Web. I want some kind of assurance that you're not just going to move the goalposts back again after considerable effort has been made to track down the citations needed. SmashTheState 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
How many times do I have to tell you that real-life notability does not establish Wikipedia notability. I just don't think the current sources used can sustain the entire article. I would have accepted it being significantly shortened and merged into
IWW, but it seems too localized of a focus for that article. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
(1) You have refused to state how many media references is enough to confirm notability. Having personally given dozens of interviews on behalf of the OPU, I know for a certainty that we can find as many as is necessary if we're given a firm number. The fact you're unwilling to do so leads me to believe that you are in bad faith, and have a conscious intention of moving back the goalposts no matter HOW many media references we find for you. (2) There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia which says references must be archived solely on the Web. Contrary to popular belief, not every media outlet archives their news on the Web indefinitely. I sincerely wonder how many Wikipedia articles could survive the kind of scrutiny and standards being applied to this one. (3) It is extremely disingenuous to complaint about the size of the article relative to its importance when most of the article now consists of the very references and citations you're demanding! From where I stand, there is absolutely no way we can EVER prove this organization is notable and this whole process is nothing but a ritual used to justify a priori deletion. That's known as a kangaroo court. SmashTheState 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the number of reliable sources you have. Essentially, you need to have enough sources, so that you can have a well-referenced article that is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. IIRC, I told you that you did not need to have web sources. See some of my articles: Thomas C. Hindman, Samuel Adams, Lee Smith (baseball), J. R. Richard, 1880 Republican National Convention. Those articles do not contain a few, if any, online resources. If you have the page number and the newspaper name, that's good enough for a reference (provided that it's actually legitimate). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Poverty issues in Canada are already too marginalized, every information source is needed. Anti-poverty groups especially are frequently ignored by the mainstream media, yet their actions are significant. We can help fix that here in Wikipedia. Panhandler's Union is a worthwhile group within Ottawa to recognize.

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

KEEP: I'm in Denver, Colorado, and i consider the topic of this article notable. This is my only comment on this page. On the other hand, much of the DELETE noise generated here comes from a very few individuals. Nishkid64 has entered twenty separate comments on this page. Ridernyc, eight comments. Samir, five comments. Maybe three other single DELETE entries by individuals. It seems to me that the article could be improved, but also that the attacks are mostly orchestrated. Also, this article has a long history of being sabotaged. That's pretty notable in itself — in a sense the attackers are confirming notability by their long and persistent attention. If the attackers would spend half of their energy and time improving the article rather than engaging in unwarranted attacks, it might by now be a candidate for GA. Richard Myers 21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the keeps are coming from people who were told to vote in this AfD, off-wiki and on-wiki. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking an article does not imply notability. Wikipedia links frequently show up high up in Google searches, and if a member of City Hall wanted to check up on OPU, then he would find that Wikipedia article. Then he could just as easily vandalize it. Also, it does not matter the number of people who are participating in this AfD. It all matters about the arguments. Also, even if this article was cleaned up, there's no chance it would pass GA. Much of the article just details all possible mentions of OPU and the background of the homelessness situation in the media (most of this stuff could just be removed). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa_Panhandlers_Union&oldid=1192681257"