Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

nn web forum with 5 members. Revealing review by someone on alexa.com:

This site is just a series of essays offering the personal view of a Canadian retired engineer - and one who admits to having no standing in the academic or religious communities. His essays are poorly written, and his conclusions often say the complete opposite from all his sources. The writer has a good name for his website, which no doubt helps him get lots of web traffic, but the content is no better than a poor essay from an untrained 16 year old

User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• And I'll bet that "someone" on alexa.com is User:Jguk. Strong Keep - this website gets millions of hits a week and has been cited by newspapers, other prominent websites, etc. Your own personal opinion of their veracity has nothing to do with their notability. What's with Wikipedia's sudden war on this site? Firebug 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Whether you like or disapprove of OCRT, their website is a commonly used site and is heavily searched and referenced on the internet, to the point of being an internet phenomenon at the very least. Don't censor it. Yahnatan 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. I've certainly heard of them; been cited by the Toronto Star, BBC, CBS etc. CanadianCaesar 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - A notable and often-referred-to site in many religious discussions I've had. Certainly a wealth of information (nearly 3000 essays written). And for the record, "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (including quotes) returns 80,400 Google hits. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This website has been often discussed in the media. Jabo 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move The article should be moved to Religioustolerance.org (which is currently a redirect) as, although the OCRT is non-notable of itself, as noted above its website has some notability/notoriety and is a suitable subject matter for Wikipedia, jguk 08:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. Calsicol 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the proviso that voting to keep the article does not in any way, shape or form indicate acceptability of them as a source. (Man, it's sad that I have to specify that, isn't it?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The anonymous Alexa review is not weighty evidence of anything. They may or may not be an NPOV source, but that is not for us to decide. --Agamemnon2 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 22:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are millions of websites. Shall we have an article on all of them? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly not, but this one happens to be an often-cited, well-known website. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not what Jcuk is saying. He is saying that there should be an article on every website that exists and is verifiable. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
        • I'm not, I am saying there COULD be an article on any website that exists and is verifiable. Not SHOULD. Jcuk 17:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately - it is indeed someone talking off the top of his head, but it gets quoted lots and lots in cult studies, particularly by the cults, because it takes Sympathetic Point Of View - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've used them as a source in the past when writing short stories that touch topics like Wicca and New Age Religions briefly. In light of the aforementioned, I shall not make the same mistake again. I just wish there WAS an unbiased source online, though I clearly see the impossibility thereof. You cannot fight stupidity with knowledge, stupidity will always win. --Agamemnon2 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rename to Religioustolerance.org. Right now, the name of the website isn't even in the article, which seems odd. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment by Zoebb moved to talk page. --cesarb 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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.