Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walden Three

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. Deizio talk 11:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walden Three

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable conspiracy theorist vanity project. Article has been up for over a year, and fails to cite to a single reliable source (or any sources for that matter). Fails WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:RS See its companion article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter, also nominated for deletion. Morton devonshire 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Crockspot 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brimba 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Awwww, Jimmy Walters. Delete per nom. --Peephole 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crockspot. Great word. --Tbeatty 06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MONGO 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - please don't imply that failing WP:RS is a reason for deletion. It is a reason to remove the unreliably sourced material. Additionally, the article does have sources. They may not be independent, objective sources, but they are reliable for basic information about the project. Also, I see no signs of WP:OR in this article. Please don't overegg the argument. WP:NOT is sufficient to see this article deleted. Carcharoth 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it can be for living person bios. --Tbeatty 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from the relationship between WP:RS and WP:V. I think what the nominator was doing was using "fails WP:RS" as shorthand for saying that the article lacks sources that provide an independent verification of the material in the article. ie. the way the article currently asks people to verify the information, is by going to the official website of the company/person involved. But "fails WP:RS" can mean other things as well, most of which are not reasons for deletion. Carcharoth 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, with caveats as noted above. Carcharoth 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a gathering place for owl worshipdoktorb _words^deeds 10:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Doktorb. :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless it is the name of a nuclear reactor somewhere like Dresden Three. Otherwise, it seems to be a vanity article created only to claim notability of its original author. --Dual Freq 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GabrielF 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all above.UberCryxic 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Advertisement spam for obvious reasons (the creator). AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Google only seems to turn up Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and the echo chamber that is online conspiracy theory sites/blogs.--Rosicrucian 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Pile-on Delete, just pure vanityspamcruftism. Daniel.Bryant 12:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Aude (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is a vanity-spam-advertisment article. Or as some call "vanityspamcruftism" (good one). JungleCat talk/contrib 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and lo and behold, by coming to this AfD I discovered the meaning of vanispamcruftisement Mujinga 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with all above. Not notable. --Marriedtofilm 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The organisation is not all that notable : 280 unique Ghits, many of which bulletin board postings, directory listings, and websites carrying its press releases. The org appears to be entirely synonymous with and cannot be disassociated from Jimmy Walter, who created the article. I was going to suggest merge, but in fact all you need is a redirect, if the debate to delete JWW is not carried. Ohconfucius 02:08, 13 October 2006 (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.