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.
Delete. It should be deleted, NOT redirected. The Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service doesn't exist at all. So redirecting is giving incorrect information, that the names are interchangeable. --
Dogbreathcanada05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, boy.
This link and
this one, for two, both confirm that an agency of this name has been proposed for creation, most recently in the
Conservative election platform. Yeah, as in the one they just won on. Which means there's a distinct possibility that this will exist within a few months. I'd need to do some more research, but this may very well be keepable.
Bearcat05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I've updated the article to make the actual status of this more clear and more encyclopedic, and to provide some external link support. I grant that since it doesn't actually exist yet, it may still strike some people as a delete, but it isn't a hoax or a wild figment of someone's imagination, either — it was explicitly proposed in the election platform of the very party that now forms the Canadian government. So, in all likelihood, the government will at least try to create this within the next few months.
Bearcat06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A fact which the article, as currently written, already makes quite clear. I don't think that makes it inherently unencyclopedic; the fact that they're going to try legitimates an article, as long as that article doesn't conflate "proposed" with "done deal" the way
CelebritySecurity's original draft did.
Bearcat07:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's not forward-looking to consider a perennial proposal for the creation of this agency, which has been discussed at some length in .ca .gov ... especially since it's notable by its absence -- Canada is one of very few countries with no foreign intelligence service.
Adrian~enwiki (
talk)
09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Until the new government actually takes official action (like, you know, actual legislation) it's just political vaporware (or maybe "vapourware"). --
Calton |
Talk15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.
While there is 'well-documented speculation', it is not "almost certain to take place", nor is the planning and notability anywhere comparable to the US election or 2012 Olympics. -
Joshuapaquin19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep this is something that was proposed by the party which is now in power. We have lots of articles on other things that were proposed but not created (
Strategic Defense Initiative,
New Columbia, etc), so why not one on something that has been proposed and may be created? -
Jord03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Because all there's been is the "proposal". In the SDI case, there was notable funded research. In the New Columbia case, there has been repeated legislation. For "CFIA", there's only been a campaign promise. That's not enough to be encyclopedic. I think it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation or an Order-in-Council, but we have no way to know if that's going to happen (Canadian governments occasionally do not follow through on all their promises). -
Joshuapaquin04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was thinking of legislation that's passed or at least gone up for a floor vote. I should have mentioned that. I'm trying to find out if anything happened with this bill (c-409); if it actually got put up or down, then I think you might be on to something... if however it died on the order paper, and hasn't since been reintroduced, I'd have a hard time thinking of it as encyclopedic.
I poked around in databases of Canadian dailies, and while there's some coverage of the introduction of the bill by Pratt, I can't find anything on its resolution. Anyone know what went down with it? -
Joshuapaquin04:37, 17 February 2006 (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.
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.
Delete. It should be deleted, NOT redirected. The Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service doesn't exist at all. So redirecting is giving incorrect information, that the names are interchangeable. --
Dogbreathcanada05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, boy.
This link and
this one, for two, both confirm that an agency of this name has been proposed for creation, most recently in the
Conservative election platform. Yeah, as in the one they just won on. Which means there's a distinct possibility that this will exist within a few months. I'd need to do some more research, but this may very well be keepable.
Bearcat05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I've updated the article to make the actual status of this more clear and more encyclopedic, and to provide some external link support. I grant that since it doesn't actually exist yet, it may still strike some people as a delete, but it isn't a hoax or a wild figment of someone's imagination, either — it was explicitly proposed in the election platform of the very party that now forms the Canadian government. So, in all likelihood, the government will at least try to create this within the next few months.
Bearcat06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A fact which the article, as currently written, already makes quite clear. I don't think that makes it inherently unencyclopedic; the fact that they're going to try legitimates an article, as long as that article doesn't conflate "proposed" with "done deal" the way
CelebritySecurity's original draft did.
Bearcat07:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's not forward-looking to consider a perennial proposal for the creation of this agency, which has been discussed at some length in .ca .gov ... especially since it's notable by its absence -- Canada is one of very few countries with no foreign intelligence service.
Adrian~enwiki (
talk)
09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Until the new government actually takes official action (like, you know, actual legislation) it's just political vaporware (or maybe "vapourware"). --
Calton |
Talk15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)reply
"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.
While there is 'well-documented speculation', it is not "almost certain to take place", nor is the planning and notability anywhere comparable to the US election or 2012 Olympics. -
Joshuapaquin19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep this is something that was proposed by the party which is now in power. We have lots of articles on other things that were proposed but not created (
Strategic Defense Initiative,
New Columbia, etc), so why not one on something that has been proposed and may be created? -
Jord03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Because all there's been is the "proposal". In the SDI case, there was notable funded research. In the New Columbia case, there has been repeated legislation. For "CFIA", there's only been a campaign promise. That's not enough to be encyclopedic. I think it will be encyclopedic once there's Canadian legislation or an Order-in-Council, but we have no way to know if that's going to happen (Canadian governments occasionally do not follow through on all their promises). -
Joshuapaquin04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was thinking of legislation that's passed or at least gone up for a floor vote. I should have mentioned that. I'm trying to find out if anything happened with this bill (c-409); if it actually got put up or down, then I think you might be on to something... if however it died on the order paper, and hasn't since been reintroduced, I'd have a hard time thinking of it as encyclopedic.
I poked around in databases of Canadian dailies, and while there's some coverage of the introduction of the bill by Pratt, I can't find anything on its resolution. Anyone know what went down with it? -
Joshuapaquin04:37, 17 February 2006 (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.