Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth 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 Speedy keep, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with this. Neil ╦ 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Wikipedia's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.

Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep First off, there has been three other strong majority consensus' for keeping this article is the previous AFDs, for good reason. The article obviously meets WP:Notability with verification of significant coverage in 41 reliable, independent sources. This site has been covered in news articles all over the U.S. and the world, including the New York Times. Furthermore, I don't like it and "we should attack it" are not valid arguments for deletion. Wikipedia carries a neutral point of view, and doesn't make value judgments of any kind. Being an attack site is not a valid argument for deletion. VanTucky (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • DO NOT VOTE KEEP!! This site should burn in hell. I want it GONE, and deleting this article is the first step in remvoing this abomination of conservatism from the internet.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos reasoning is unconvincing... --Malcolmxl5 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"Malcolmx15", I now officially hate you. I don't mean to be a troll, but I HATE anyone who doesn't HATE Conservapedia. Oh and did I mention that CP is the worst site ever made. Even goatse.cx wasn't this BAD... Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That DOESN'T MATTER. The site is HORRIBLE, that matters. If we dlete the article, this crap may die faster and that will be a GREAT day when it finally gets what it deserves and burns in HELL. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Grow up. Disagreeing with the political stance of something is no reason to delete it and the over the top nature of the nominator's language merely draws attention to the paucity of his arguments. Nick mallory 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with its "political stance", I'm a homeschooled American Christian conservative myself. I disagree with the fact that the site isn't even that conservative, and that it is too "family-friendly", it makes stupid legal threats, etc. And, WP users should agree with me. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't deleting this article make us as bad as them? ~ Infrangible 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • At leeast WE aren't a menace to free speech. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a great site, but certainly notable and newsworthy. "They are evil people" is not a reason to delete. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If this weren't encroaching on "avoid self reference" territory, I would have trouble understanding why this is much of a question. It has 40 solid references and meets WP:WEB with room to spare. Shalom Hello 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom and borderline vandalism.Ht/c 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-my criticism stems from the fact that there is nothing I hate nore than public-schooled liberals, and many of the admins, even some of the most prominent admins, are public-schooled liberals. Thus there is public-schooled liberalism, and use of liberal terms such as "homophobia" throughout the wiki. I never liked it, but when I saw the legal threats, I got fed up. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank god for informed consensus decisions. I do not believe Wikipedia was established to publish/promote/list/or other wise circulate articles that are found worthy or are appropriately correct to just a few individuals thinking. My understanding, and the most important one that comes to mind, is that Wikipedia was founded to disseminate information on noteworthy topics to all people regardless of what that information is or who agrees or disagrees with the information. If it is verifiable and it is noteworthy it belongs. No matter who believes otherwise. ShoesssS Talk
  • Speedy Keep - can someone please advise the nominator to please stop wasting the communities time by nominating articles for deletion that qualify for speedy keep? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Can these edit conflicts stop wasting my time? Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:43, 15 July 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.