| Revision as of 22:11, 21 May 2009 editSmith research (talk | contribs)131 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:13, 21 May 2009 edit undoSmith research (talk | contribs)131 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| ::::::Indeed, SR, please ]. I'll review the sources later when I have more time, but the ones I looked at to date mention single opinions by people connected to CCRC, and do not discuss the organization in depth. Please devote your efforts to reading the guidelines pointed out and improving the page based on them. If you are serious and committed to helping wikipedia, you must be familiar with our rules and can't rely on others to do improve the page for you. As is, the page could very easily be ]. If you really wish to avoid this, take the sources you have pointed out and use them as ] in the page to clearly demonstrate ]. I would still suggest that the items may support notability of specific people rather than the organizaion as a whole, but I'll have to review the sources in greater detail. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Indeed, SR, please ]. I'll review the sources later when I have more time, but the ones I looked at to date mention single opinions by people connected to CCRC, and do not discuss the organization in depth. Please devote your efforts to reading the guidelines pointed out and improving the page based on them. If you are serious and committed to helping wikipedia, you must be familiar with our rules and can't rely on others to do improve the page for you. As is, the page could very easily be ]. If you really wish to avoid this, take the sources you have pointed out and use them as ] in the page to clearly demonstrate ]. I would still suggest that the items may support notability of specific people rather than the organizaion as a whole, but I'll have to review the sources in greater detail. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Sources == | |||
| Here's my analysis of the sources presented: | |||
| * - a soundbite from Grant Wilson; more a source for ] than this page | |||
| * - another soundbite | |||
| * - arguably the most useful for notability, but again it's not about CCRC, it's more soundbite stuff. | |||
| * - this can't be used for anything | |||
| * - not useful | |||
| * - This is from the main page. It's a soundbite from Grant Wilson, and the only thing that could be said is that Wislon called for a commissioner of children. | |||
| Most of these are sources indicate that the CCRC is a cheap soundbite, and ''all'' of them are soundbites from Grant Wilson. Arguably, he ''might'' be notable, but most fail the "extensive discussion" criteria. Even the interview, he's not talking about CCRC, he's discussing an issue. All also show the organization's considerable bias as a ''father's'' rights organization, not children's rights. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:13, 21 May 2009
 | Organizations Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Canada Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Freechild objection to notability tag page removal - Canadian Children's Right Council
Freechild, you created this web page . Are you for or aganist the notability of this page?
Are you going to deal with the issue or just change other's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.11.58 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Get the name right It's not CCRC
Why did you undo the fix I made to correct the name. The legal name is what I stated. Why did you change it back to the wrong name? The legal name is the english and french with a - between them. Smith research (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Notability
Do a Google search on their website and you will find them frequently quoted in the national media articles such as the Globe and Mail and The National Post, the 2 largest national daily newspapers. I found 4 or 5 wuotes by their president in The Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper which is in Toronto. One is at ( a Canadian Press article) and The Canadian Press supplies articles to the media across Canada. Another article is at:
The front page of their website has a link to a video of the president on CTV's Canada AM, Canada's most watched morning TV news show.
Their president has been on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation show CBC News Sunday with Carole MacNeil and Evan Solomon nafew times. It is one of the leading TV journalism shows in Canada. He was debating family law with the past chair of the National Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. You can view the CBC video online at:
If you check the COMSCORE website rankings, they get more visitors than UNICEF Canada or Save the Children Canada both of whom have the CanadianCRC as links on their website.
The Government of Canada has numerous links into their website. One is on the Library and Archives Canada. section 323 Civil and political rights
Most of the human rights libraries have them listed as well. One is the University of Ottawa - Human Rights Research and Education Centre http://www.cdp-hrc.uottawa.ca/eng/doc/can-web/discriminationcan_e.php Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC) comment added by Smith research (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- If the organization has been discussed in newspapers, then link them as inline citations because I could not find them on google news. Also possibly linked is the news programs mentioned. As for the collections canada and CDP cites, those are not substantive discussions, they are just links to the page from a linkfarm. So they don't work for notability. The CBC link doesn't seem to mention CCRC except in the comments, which are not reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- If Canada's 3 TV networks have them on their shows, that's notable enough for me and everyone else. Why do you disagree?Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your comment dismissing the CBC video when you stated "The CBC link doesn't seem to mention CCRC except in the comments, which are not reliable sources. " You obviously didn't watch the video or you disagree with their politics.Smith research (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't make personal comments about the motivations of other editors as you did above, SmithResearch. It seems that you might need to look at the WP guidelines for the notability of organizations. A few brief, tangential mentions of an organization in articles about other things are not enough to clearly establish notability (and there is only one listed in the article at present) We need articles in books and newspapers about the organization. Were any of the TV programs actually about the group? I am going to restore the notability tag for now, since it isn't a criticism: the whole point of it is to encourage reliable sources proving notability to be added. If they can't be found, then after a certain period of time anWP:AFD nomination might need to be considered.--Slp1 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I created the article. By way of acknowledging this discussion, I will simply say that I believe the requirement for this page to have "reliable, independent secondary sources" has been met. There has been significant coverage, and there are secondary sources cited and further available. Best wishes. • <font color="#C00000" Freechild'sup? 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Freechild, for your comments. At the moment there is only one "reliable, independent secondary source" cited in the article, and it only mentions CCRC very briefly. Do you know of other sources that mention the organization in more detail? If so, could you add them to the article? Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, SR, please assume good faith. I'll review the sources later when I have more time, but the ones I looked at to date mention single opinions by people connected to CCRC, and do not discuss the organization in depth. Please devote your efforts to reading the guidelines pointed out and improving the page based on them. If you are serious and committed to helping wikipedia, you must be familiar with our rules and can't rely on others to do improve the page for you. As is, the page could very easily be deleted. If you really wish to avoid this, take the sources you have pointed out and use them as inline citations in the page to clearly demonstrate notability. I would still suggest that the items may support notability of specific people rather than the organizaion as a whole, but I'll have to review the sources in greater detail. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)