Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep WilyD 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia

Not particularly notable site, not many reliable outside sources, and the onces there are all came from three months (or more) ago. Mostly a trolling/attack site that Wikipedia should not recognize. Even if it is not deleted, it should be shortened to about a tenth of its current size.TwoSessions 02:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT notable and is a cuthertucking attack site. TwoSessions 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
civility plz 58.178.95.26 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Article meets criteria on WP:Notability by a longshot (age of sources has no bearing, notable does not mean contemporary), and has been the survivor of other AFD's on this exact same issue. The quality (or lack thereof) of Conservapedia's content is not a qualification for deletion. This AFD nomination smacks of "I don't like it". VanTucky 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep NPR, New York Times, New Scientist, Guardian are plenty for notability. Proposer clearly has a strong dislike for the subject of the article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Concerns about the article's content should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here.--agr 03:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian, Washington Post. Toronto Sun, Ottawa Sun, MSNBC, Der Spiegel and some French newspaper are enough to make Encyclopedia Dramatica notable, but it is deleted.TwoSessions 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep 2sessions you might want to see Uncyclopedia, same issue --Andersmusician $ 06:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I had to come here to figure out if it was satire! Irashtar 09:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Although much of the information on conservapedia is incorrect it does not mean that it should be considered for deletion. The fact that it exists and has been noted by several news organizations warrents its existance as an article. -Vcelloho 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This exact issue was brought up in both the previous AFD's the community determined it was not a valid criticism then and that CP was plenty notable. That is not going to change in a month. Tmtoulouse 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep See my reasons on what is now Archive page 5 - Conservapedia operates on a somewhat different rationale to most wikis etc. Probably "shorten significantly." Jackiespeel 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Terry 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The issue isn't whether it's a "trolling/attack site" but whether it's notable; it is. JamesMLane t c 14:59, 15 June 2007 (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.