Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale.to

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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whale.to

Advertisement for a non-notable quack website whose administrator is a Wikipedia user. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable pseudoscientific website. Alex.tan 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So speaks a vaccinator. john 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • John, do not attack voters. Attempts to "reveal bias" in AFD votes are usually ignored and often lead to backfiring to one's disadvantage. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A knee jerk--when you hear a politician's vote for his party wasn't due to politics. I have a (bad to some) habit of speaking unspeakable truths, and you aren't outnumbered 10 to 1 with them claiming impartiality in due process, have 3 editors following you around deleting your edits using ad hominem as the reason, with a few others deleting pages you made. john 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. Please note that User:Ombudsman is adding links to this site to all sorts of Wikipedia pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I disagree with the content on the website, the website has generated a fair amount of controversy on Wikipedia (e.g. see Talk:MMR vaccine) and is notable in that regard. Wwhether or not whale.to should be linked to in the external link section is a separate issue (favor not linking to). Andrew73 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This page seems to have sprung from the seemingly intractable RfC on whale.to on Talk:MMR vaccine. Basically, the RfC was meant to determine the appropriateness of whale.to for external linking on a variety of sites. Several editors suggested that whale.to receive its own page in lieu of links on the multitude of topics that whale.to objects to. Personally, if having its own page stops Ombudsman from spamming it on the medical pages, I'd support keeping it. InvictaHOG 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You even deleted two published books of Dr Kalokerinos [1] such is your desire to suppress vitamin C and vaccine critics. And your argument to delete links to whale.to is pure ad hominem. If anyone was a spammer I would consider your deletion efforts as allopathic spamming. john
  • But it isn't. it has its own page and he's still spamming all of the pages with links to it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN (and the deal described above, even if it worked, amounts to obtaining inclusion by blackmail). Tearlach 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This site is substantially comprised of a highly misleading selection of copyright material taken from other sources with no evidence of permission. Such republication is an identical theft to the theft of copyright music. The intent of whale.to is to mislead. 86.129.115.248 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. user 248 is an ad hominem abusive attack. This is the best argument that is offered, esssentially eg 'pseudoscientific', 'quack' are common ad hominem terms, and there is never going to be an argument against linking to an on-line book eg on the salk polio vaccine [2] except ad hominem. Just suppression of allopathy criticism. john 14:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep No other vaccine site crops up at the top of google searches as often and with as much pertinent content as does Whale.to. The site may well have the greatest breadth of vaccine content to be found anywhere on the net. With the growing prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders overwhelming medical service providers, devastating families, financially depleting school systems, and wreaking havoc on the health and well being of millions of affected children and families around the globe, wherever mass vaccination programs have spread, the role of Whale.to in overcoming the suppression of scientific knowledge has long since achieved notability. Ombudsman 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB, notorious POV/troll magnet on Wikipedia for several months now. Outlet of regurgitated material from other sources, no original material available. Inadequate as a reference (see Talk:MMR vaccine and associated RFC), let alone as the subject of its own Wikipedia page. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alexa rank 105,354, well below the WP:WEB cutoff of 10,000. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --WS 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the amount of links to the site from wikipedia are, by now, practically notable in and of themselves. Michael Ralston 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's a circular argument. To create notability all a webmaster (or his proxies) has to do is dump links to his site all over Wikipedia and it automatically becomes worthy of its own article? Have you read WP:WEB? JFW | T@lk 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pseudoscience, troll bait and garbage. Incognito 05:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looking at the site, I can see no way it qualifies under WP:WEB and the article itself doesn't actually contain any particularly relevant encyclopaedic content QmunkE 12:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the site may be notable in the unbelievable amount of nonsense it contains, but only for that reason. --CDN99 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete However, John and other supporters Who the hell is John? Article terribly written. And it looks like there was no need to write it on the first place. TestPilot 04:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

John is mentioned in the introduction and is the same john replying in this thread! InvictaHOG 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Self-serving and non-notable. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established in article or in arguments here; notability through internal wikipedia controversy does not establish notability in the world at large. siafu 14:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'll abstain for now, but I have a question for John that may help us work through these issues. You keep adding links to your http://whale.to website to many, many medical Wikipedia pages. Are you doing this because you believe whale.to is currently a notable resource, or because you are hoping it becomes a notable resource in the future? --Arcadian 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't added any links for weeks, I'll be back in the saddle in a week or so. I did a Wiki page some time ago which had a few links pointing out the allopaths game, and I'll update that in due course, eg deleting pages I have done such as Lily Loat, and attemting to delete these Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics, that one took an hour to do. While I have been off whale.to for a few weeks, for various reasons, I have been doing Wiki pages, eg National Anti-Vaccination League, started this one Harris Coulter, so I may do more of that as Wiki certainly needs more of a balanced viewpoint as nearly all of the vaccine pages and vaccine disease pages (for starters) are purely allopathic thinking, with no vaccine criticism allowed, and I enjoy doing that. I did manage to create Archie Kalokerinos and put his vitamin C cot death prevention on the SIDS page---after a big battle on the Talk MMR page (not sure that was worth the talk). But at least he seems to be still up there, fingers crossed. I may put a link to the Wiki page I have done on The National Anti-Vaccination League, rather than duplicating it on whale.to. That needed doing and I doubt I would have done it if I hadn't come here, so that is one plus point. I have the books on the shelf. I can't see Wiki ever improving on my pages eg Scheibner [3], unless you have a document facility, and can keep the allopaths from deleting them or the links. As to your query about whale being a notable resource, I feel (IMO) it is the most valuable resource on medicine on the internet, right now, but i don't expect anyone who hasn't done the research I've done to see that, especially allopaths for obvious reasons, the main reason being the lack of real knowledge of most people who have been fed propaganda, like I was. (Medical) Truth is very simple, but really annoying to man, as Goethe said. I have the best vaccine document resource on the internet, especially smallpox. I have taken apart vaccination already, so any additions will be gilding the lily, but I will have all the relevent smallpox books up there one day, as I like to be thorough. john 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added more detail to the page. I believe it is NPOV, but further review is of course appreciated. --Arcadian 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG are using in his ad hominem ploy are also on wiki pages. So I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, but NOT OK for me to have them?? john 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Goes to credibility, as the TV lawyers like to say. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 6 January 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.