Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (second nomination)

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. Bad faith WP:POINT nomination.Ezeu 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia

It's only been around for a few months, and I see no way in which it is notable. Sure it about 7000 articles but that's less than Kamelopedia (which has also been around for 3 years as oppsoed to 4 months) which you have deleted. Moar mudkipz 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I personally would have liked to have seen this mooted on the talk page first, and to have had the AFD mentioned in your edit summary. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There was an article concerning this in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian, BBC radio, and more. Seems like this certainly meets notability standards. Strong Keep. --Daniel Olsen 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong and speedy keep - The number of articles is irrelevant and a total red herring, as is the length of time that it has been in existance. It has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trival sources and thus is suitable for an article. --Fredrick day 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The user history suggests this is a WP:POINT nom - I suggest an admin knocks it on the head. --Fredrick day 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep - This is a highly notable article.(NPR)(Chicago Tribune)(Toronto Star)(TIME) That last link involves Jimmy Wales commenting on Conservapedia in response to 10 questions TIME asked him. Of all of the questions that TIME felt were most important to ask Wales, Conservapedia was in the top 10. That alone says quite a lot. Why are we having this discussion?! -Harmil 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This article was undeleted on 1 March - less than 6 weeks ago. It has accumulated more than 700 edits since that time and it currently lists 43 references. While many of those references are to Conservapedia and Wikipedia articles, there are clearly enough credible external sources to establish notability, particularly for an article with such a short lifespan. This AfD does not appear to be in good faith. - Authalic 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - The subject web site is not notable in and of itself (it's sort of like "what we did in school today"), but it has been the subject of widespread print and internet attention. Making it "something that can be accurately written about and documented". I do agree with Authalic that the AfD nom appears to be in bad faith, by the way. Huw Powell 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Bad faith nomination for WP:POINT, just look at the reference list there has been extensive coverage in the media all over the globe. The article has also been cited as a reference by several media sources. The size or number of articles is meaningless. Tmtoulouse 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see an actual reason to delete the article in the nomination. Is it perhaps lack of notability? The numerous reliable and verifiable references included on the page would belie that reason. Otherwise, there's no actual rationale to delete. WLU 21:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - user who nominated this page for deletion has five contributions to wikipedia. This nomination is bullshit, if not outright vandalism. WLU 22:00, 9 April 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.