Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 28
- 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 Speedy delete (not sure if this falls under A7, but consensus here for it to go is strong). Petros471 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sativa Afghani Genetic Equilibrium
Cleanup tag since January, no action. This is spam for a nn product that gets <700 ghits - including verbatim transcripts of this article on answers.com etc etc. Bridesmill 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Answers.com is a WP mirror. Every WP page shows up there verbatim. -- Kicking222 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising, and a copyvio from the only external link. Kevin 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with above statement Sarahgal 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete This is blatant advertisement, copy vio, POV propaganda. I'm surprised it's survived this long. Ande B 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kevin. -- Kicking222 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Ande B. --Starionwolf 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above Crazynas 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kevin. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete, advertisement, spam. --Terence Ong 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is an add. jbolden1517Talk 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete some ad for weed, or something M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete non-notable product/ad. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ooh, do we get to use red for speedies now? In that case, speedy Delete – under CSD A7 – Gurch 07:36, 28 May 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.
- 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. No point keeping this any longer. kingboyk 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathan Harchick
Proposed deletion is absolutely bloody useless for internet stuffs, being that some fan will inevitably remove it. Not a notable video logger, the only notability that the article comes up with is that he's been mentioned on other blogs. Woop-ti-do! Google gives 50 links for his name, Google news gives nothing. The only reason I found this was because I saw his sketch on Google Video, and thought, "I bet some webfan thought he should be on Wikipedia, and if so they're entirely wrong." We should just speedy this rubbish. - Hahnchen 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin 00:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There's applicable speedy category for this. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dead end article.--Hezzy 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Sarahgal 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hahnchen I don't see any blood though. --Starionwolf 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see above jbolden1517Talk 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete being mentioned on digg doesn't establish notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. ~Chris {tce@} 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks useless. -AMK152 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --JChap 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a speedy, I guess, because there's some quasi-notability implied... But if someone did it I wouldn't object. Totally non-notable. Grandmasterka 04:01, 29 May 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Willie wortel
NN advert for a small chain of 3 shops Bridesmill 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN - fails WP:CORP Kevin 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Sarahgal 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable shop. Sorry. --Starionwolf 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, fails WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete May be notable but article doesn't make the case. jbolden1517Talk 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Gyro Gearloose since Willie Wortel is apparently the Dutch name for that character. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- but does the Gyro Gearloose article need to know that there are 3 marijuana coffeeshops n Holland named after him? Bridesmill 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think Disney's Dutch trademark lawyers would be interested, but I've only suggested a redirect, not a merge. As a second choice, I'd rather this be deleted entirely than merged into Gyro Gearloose. --Metropolitan90 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable advertisement, or redirect per Metropolitan90 if the above statement can be sourced – Gurch 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what everyone else said —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osbus (talk • contribs)
- Delete advert. --JChap 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete then Redirect to Gyro Gearloose without merging per Metro. --Eivindt@c 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn Jll 10:40, 30 May 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.
- 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 redirect, cheap n' easy. Mailer Diablo 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Draven
Wrestler in a non-notable wrestling federation in Indiana. Fails WP:BIO. Metros232 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, and redirect to The Crow. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Crow per Zoe. Kevin 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Zoe Crazynas 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Crow. Don't delete edit history (on the off-chance that someday someone figures out how to make it more notable). Armedblowfish 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- To be precise, redirect to The Crow (film), not The Crow. The comic book character was never given a last name. Fan1967 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to The Crow, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to The Crow. Thetruthbelow Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Screw up? I don't see what this has to do with the crow. I'm seeing an article about a professional wrestler. This looks like some kind of cross link jbolden1517Talk 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Eric Draven is the name of the main character in the 1994 film The Crow, which is why the other editors prefer to redirect this article there. This article is about a wrestler who does use the same name but he isn't necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Crow (film) – per Fan1967 – Gurch 07:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Crow (film) – per Fan1967 - FRCP11 12:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Crow (film) - per above --Angelstorm 02:00, 31 May 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.
- 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 complicated. A gentle slap with a fish to Tijuana Brass for nominating so many different articles of different areas from The Elder Scrolls, and making the closing complex. The consensus seems to be merge most of them into groups; e.g., all the animals into one article, all the characters (except Almalexia who is kept) into one article, and all items into one article. Also cull out all info that is more suited to GameFAQs. But before all this is done, projectify to somewhere like Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Elder Scrolls/articles/foo. But a gentle caress with a fish to Tijuana Brass for volunteering to remove all those AFD notices. Because I don't want to do it! Hahaha. OK, go. Proto||type 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elder Scrolls-related articles
For convenience's sake, I'm listing all AfD candidates related to The Elder Scrolls computer game series here, due to their similarity. Please feel free to amend these page if you feel I have erred. I've tried to redirect all AfD tags on these pages to here. I strongly recommend to the closing admin to projectfy these pages to the Elder Scrolls WikiProject before deletion so they made be copied and included on a gaming wiki — most are well-written, just unencyclopedic. Please feel free to add onto this list as necessary. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposed articles for deletion:
[edit] Animals
Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is not meant to list non-notable creatures from video games:
- Alit
- Cliff racer
- Dreugh
- Flame Atronach
- Guar (Morrowind)
- Kagouti
- Kwama
- Mudcrab (Morrowind)
- Netch
- Nix hound
- Scrib
- Shalk
- Silt strider
- Slaughterfish
[edit] Characters
Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia does not list non-notable, non-encyclopedic fictional characters.
- Almalexia
- Cephorus Septim I
- Cephorus Septim II
- Daedric Princes
- Eloisa Septim
- Jauffre
- Katariah Septim
- Kintyra Septim
- Kintyra Septim II
- Magnus Septim
- Ocato
- Pelagius Septim I
- Pelagius Septim II
- Pelagius Septim III
- Pelagius Septim IV
- Potema Septim
- Ria Silmane
- Sithis
[edit] Items, etc.
Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is also not meant to list non-notable items (if any) from video games:
- Amulet of Kings
- Daedric Artifacts
- Daedric Crescent
- Kagrenac's Tools
- Staff of Chaos
- Wabbajack
[edit] Discussion
Please add comments in support of or opposing these nominations below:
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - By the way, I realize the mess that such an en-masse AfD creates, so to save someone else the hassle, I'll be glad to take upon myself the chore of removing a bunch of AfD tags, deleting, or whatever else the consensus may be once decided by the closing admin. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as per excellent nomination. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Bwithh 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Merge, Transwiki, I could see having a page for each category, (eg. Items of Elderscrolls) but not one for each item, transwiki as per nom, and delete as per nom Delete Crazynas 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (with appropriate transwikification) per nom. It would be nice if Tijuana could find a flying buttress to help him handle this load... :) Joe 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep some of these are quite good articles, some may need to be deleted, but you grouped them in one bunch, so I have to vote keep for all of the bunch. In particular, Almalexia shouldn't be deleted, because it's rather major character, and there are probably others that shouldn't be deleted. Grue 06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you (or anyone else) has a good knowledge of these games, it'd be helpful if you could list any of these noms which could be considered major characters or themes, as it may be helpful to break a couple off into their own AfDs. Think conservatively, though. Tijuana BrassE@ 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- You should split off Almalexia (or just delist it). She is a central figure in Morrowind and its expansions. Grue 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since changing the list would circumvent the votes already here, we'll mark it as a note for the closing admin to consider — thanks for making it known. Tijuana BrassE@ 09:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- You should split off Almalexia (or just delist it). She is a central figure in Morrowind and its expansions. Grue 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you (or anyone else) has a good knowledge of these games, it'd be helpful if you could list any of these noms which could be considered major characters or themes, as it may be helpful to break a couple off into their own AfDs. Think conservatively, though. Tijuana BrassE@ 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, Delete, and Transwiki (I think that's the correct order) per nom. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Merge where appropriate. So much gamecruft, so little time...I'm grateful that someone did the work to round them all up. In many of these cases, the main article isn't even that long, so I don't understand the need to make a ton of seperate articles. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete most of them, although there are a few that seem to be quite good. If moving to wikis outside Wikimedia counts as transwiki-ing, then Transwiki the others – Gurch 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, this is game guide info not for an encyclopaedia. I don't think there is cause for a 'creatures of TES' page, or for much (if any) of this info to be merged. Perhaps Almalexia could be merged to the Morrowing game page (perhaps) and likewise the Amulet of Kings could perhaps find a home on the Oblivion game page. Other than that, emphatic delete, and a thank you for the amount of work this involved. CastorQuinn 09:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now, most of them should probably be deleted or merged eventually but I'm definitely against mass deleting them. The Elderscrolls wikiproject is just getting started why not give its a chance to merge and tidy up the article space before deleting a huge chunk of the content. Dv82matt 10:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge most but not all of these articles.
-
- Merge all articles under Animals into existing article Creatures of Morrowind.
-
- That article is currently under 15,000 bytes, so it can be enlarged with little problem.
- Exception: Merge Cyrodiil-related parts of Dreugh into Creatures of Cyrodiil#Land_Dreugh, with appropriate cross-linking.
- Edit the "creatures" row in Template:ElderScrolls accordingly.
- Merge articles listed under Items into a new article named (possibly) Major Artifacts (The Elder Scrolls). (See Template:TES-weapons. We could, and probably should, also rename that template to "TES-artifacts", and the corresponding category to Category:The Elder Scrolls artifacts.)
- Delete Ria Silmane: the article has already been merged into The Elder Scrolls: Arena. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ria Silmane.
- Keep Almalexia because that article is (1) relatively long and (2) a spoiler for Morrowind and/or Tribunal.
- Merge all characters named Septim listed above into a new article named (perhaps) Septim family. Could/should also merge other articles in Category:The Septim bloodline (excluding Uriel Septim VII and Martin Septim, who are too spoilery) into that article.
- Merge Jauffre and Ocato into Minor Characters of Oblivion (c/f Minor characters in Morrowind, which redirects to List of minor characters in Morrowind; see also discussion of article name in Talk:List of minor characters in Morrowind). Add a one-sentence item about Ocato to List of minor characters in Morrowind, linking to his section of the new article.
- Merge Daedric Princes into Daedra.
- Merge Sithis into Dark Brotherhood.
- Comment: Possible further merges:
-
- The Elder Scrolls are set in a world called Nirn, which has 6 continents (Akavir, Aldmeris, Atmora, Pyandonea, Tamriel and Yokuda) but only Tamriel has been used as a setting. We could merge the articles for the other 5 continents into (say) Continents of Nirn and use Template:main to point to Tamriel.
- Similarily, we could create (say) Cosmology of The Elder Scrolls by merging Aetherius (Elder Scrolls), Aurbis, Battlespire and Oblivion (Elder Scrolls), with a Template:main pointer to Nirn.
- All names for proposed articles are just suggestions. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - I agree with CWC for the most part. There are numerous articles that, taken for themselves, are candidates for deletion and/or mergers. I'd volunteer to take over some of the work that'll have to be done on that front.
- However, I argue strongly against outright deleting most of the content contained therein, with the only argument that WP is "not a game guide". WP is supposed to be a contemporary encyclopedia and content about one of the most widely-acclaimed RPG video game series surely is not out of place there. For comparison, just look at the lots of content for all the numberless TV series, comics or anime/manga series. It's part of contemporary "culture" (or sub-culture), for want of a better term, and it deserves its place inside WP.
- However, I also agree that there are way to many articles just containing single-paragraph content; many of them are stubs. Therefore, mergering them should be the method of choice here. As I've said, I'm prepared to do some of the work that's necessary. Cheers, Something Wicked 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to remind everyone about the widely accepted guideline WP:FICT. In a nutshell it says that minor characters and concepts should be merged into lists, not deleted. So, it seems like CWC's proposal is the most sensible way to close this discussion. Grue 15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. I'm also in favour of moving all the smaller and spoiler-free articles to the corresponding lists rather than deleting them outright. However, I strongly advice against Daedric Princes being merged with Daedra, for the latter describes the Daedric race and its subraces, while the former is about the pesonalities of the various Princes. To put it simpler, Daedra belongs to the races category, while Princes - to the characters cat. --Koveras
16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - Merge per the most recent three comments above. -- Kicking222 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge The content is good on a few of them. Deleting some of the more notable (Amulet of Kings, for example) would be bad, but it definetly shouldn't have it's own article. For the less notable stuff, just list them somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyne (talk • contribs)
- Merge - per above --Jaranda wat's sup 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Cheers. --Starionwolf 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't; we already have lots of articles about games, even if that is bad, a few more won't change things much (and it isn't bad anyway). Bryce 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Note - merge is fine with me too just don't lose content.
- Keep: for a nomination of this size I am simply unable to vote for deletion, nor can I say merge because I am not familiar with these games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This AFD will not conclude with a delete because so many articles have been grouped together, surely the nominator knew this. I have only played Morrowind (pretty comprehensively) and have some suggestions below:
- Delete - All the creatures of Morrowind. Things like Alit, Nix Hound and Shalks were just generic enemies in Morrowind. Like Goombas but without the popularity, recognisability and lasting impact of Mario enemies.
- Delete - Daedric Crescent, Staff of Chaos, Wabbajack. Although these are not generic items in the game, they are just one of many top tier items you can get. I can think of many such items in Morrowind alone.
- Keep & Merge - Merge smaller articles, keep bigger ones. No need to delete anything. Havok (T/C/c) 08:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Triage, then Trim, merge and delete, including the continents commented on by CWC. -- Hirudo 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep&Merge - Several of the articles should probably be merged, especially many of the animals and the more minor characters. I know from experience, though, that the Kwama article and some others are a bit big for a list (of course that's a little biased 'cause I did a great deal of the work on Kwama). --Niroht 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (except Almalexia) - Almalexia is a huge part of Morrowind and the series (and I wrote half the article ;)) but most of the others could easily be merged. -Senori 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep&Merge - Almalexia ought to have her own article. Septim dynasty should have its own article with the Septim monarch articles merged and the data regards them listed. Tiber and Uriel VII must have their own articles, being major characters in TES lore. The creatures list should be merged; either into the Daedra article, and Morrowind creatures. D-Katana 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Merge per others. - CNichols 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL. -- Vohod(Please login and sign Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC))I am logged in -- Vohod (I honest to god don't know how to get my name on this stuff)- Keep/Merge A lot of these articles should be merged into new or exsisteing articles like the animals and septims into one and the daedric stuff can be combined probably. Don't see a reason to out right delete it all WCX 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, gamecruft. However, since that won't succeed, suggest to nominator that he take the long route, using a bunch of suggested merges. Vizjim 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and merge keep bigger ones, merge smaller ones --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and merge. The details of merging will be further discussed on WP:TES, but generally are likely to stay close to this:
- All animals will be merged in Creatures of Morrowind.
- Artifacts in question will be merged in The Elder Scrolls Artifacts. Daedric ones stay separated.
- Emperors will be merged in Emperors of Tamriel, Septim Dynasty, or similar-named article.
- Almalexia is notable enough and requires a separate article.
- Daedric Princes will stay, as already encompassing multiple characters.
- Other characters will be merged.
- This is a proposal for the final decision, based on listed articles themselves, TES source info, and the listed opinions. CP/M 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Transwikify. Good articles, but as the nominator said, not really encyclopedic. Would do better on obliviowiki. -- jeffthejiff 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into appropriate lists/articles per CP/M & CWC. Scoo 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge I think that these articles are useful for people like me, who want to learn more about the Elder Scrolls creatures and such, so perhaps the articles could all be merged, But Deleting them is a bad idea, in my opinion.
- Merge - I agree with CWC about categorizing the content, and I agree with Something Wicked regarding the articles' relevance to the Wikipedia. The articles should not be as complete as a dedicated Elder Scrolls wiki, but summaries and overviews are appropriate for a modern encyclopedia. CrystallinEntity 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL Vohod 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per CP/M. In general, I agree with the nominator's rationale, but this is a bit much at once. Once merged, we can better assess the individual articles' notability. Sandstein 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Fabulous, encyclopedic work on this game. Congrats to the editors who took the time to develop this coverage. --JJay 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per JJay, and I don't see why other series like Star Wars, Star Trek or the Matrix can have comprehensive wikipedia coverage and The Elder Scrolls can't. -mrbartjens 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Grue. --Evan Robidoux 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge the characters and places, delete the items and animals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of every fictional object ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & Merge per Havok - AHMYBRAIN 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Merge; articles on very minor game elements, such as Alit should be merged together into a smaller number of broad articles, instead of having a skipload of stubs, for example Animals of the Elder Scrolls (for animals like the Alit, but maybe not Daedric creatures), Artifacts of the Elder Scrolls (for stuff like the Wabbajack), Characters of the Elder Scrolls (for moderate-significance characters like Jauffre and Ocato) and so forth. Major characters, such as Almalexia, should keep their own articles. Minor Daedric Princes and articles about lesser Daedric creatures could be merged into Daedra, although Azura and Dremora (although that hasn't been nominated) could get/keep their own articles, as a significant character in Morrowind; and the dominant and most significant type of lesser Daedra, respectively. The same for other minor ES articles, as per CWC above, where appropriate. As a side note, the Oblivion Wiki seems specific to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, not the whole Elder Scrolls series. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all (nonstub) articles that can't be merged into a more appropriate list. A tremendous amount of work seems to have gone into organizing this, and I would hate to see it lost. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with some transwiki too much cruft, but some may be good for places other than wikipedia. Redirect/merge everything, really good stuff(that isn't appropreate for wikipedia) should get sent across the transwiki void. Kevin_b_er 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge stubs but Keep any substantial ones (Daedric Artifacts is the only one I see). Anything left over can be renominated in a smaller set. Eluchil404 05:35, 7 June 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DjDTM
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-notable website/bio - Rudykog 06:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ickalanda: Please do not delete, just information about the website.
- Comment - I know, but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. - Rudykog 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should go , it is not notable enough for example if it was a article about slashdot no one would have any objections but i've never heard of this website and i don't really see how it belongs in wikipedia all that much Kingpomba 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping it could be created before the site became super popular and the site is known in my local area (Kalamazoo/Portage MI) http://djdtm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=723#723 - DjDTM
Okay hold on I am getting a screenshot of the number of views per month based of individual IPs that looked at at least 2 pages and stayed for longer than 30 minutes. -Ickalanda
Okay I have it:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4348/visits23nk.jpg
-Ickalanda
How is it non-notable with 6,000+ viewers? Yes that is not super popular but it has a steady increase and is well known in my local area. -Ickalanda
- Comment - Usually when Wikipedians look for notability, they look for things like Alexa Internet rankings (DjDTM.com isn't even ranked), Google testing hits (DjDTM.com comes out at a little over 700), and sometimes forum accounts (DjDTM.com has 34). Notability has more to do with something that many people around the world may know about or have heard of, not just locals. - Rudykog 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
A few people from Massachusetts know about it and some people from the UK if that counts. Also the majority of viewers do not register at the forums and just watch the movies.
- Comment - Compare 6,000 a month with Masamania's 125,000+ a week.[11] It still wasn't enough. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masamania) - Rudykog 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
DjDTM - Just delete the site already. Wiki is an unrealiable source for information anyway.
- Delete. Per all of the above.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Haakon 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not-notible, and the guy voting keep seems to be the site owner. -- 9cds(talk) 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:50, 28 May 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.
- 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 Keep - delete is certainly in the minority (about 25%), and some of the suggestions to merge are not particularly appropriate IMHO, as Eurovision Song Contest 2006 was split because it was too large, so keep in terms of majority consensus as well as the fact that merging and moving content is not particularly feasible.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 |
This page is related to the WikiProject Eurovision. This Project is an attempt to enhance, organise, and standardise articles about the Eurovision Song Contest. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
Individual articles for each year of France's (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for France in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be France's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. This should be true for all countries with respect to the Eurovision Song Contest Bejnar 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The authors should consider creating biographical articles (if they do not already exist) about the bands or individuals listed in these articles who are separately notably and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Bejnar 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Bulgaria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Lithuania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Monaco in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
- Keep. All of them. As much as I hate the Eurovision Song Contest, there is simply no denying that even such a trivial thing as the selection of an entry is a major media event in every European country. David Sneek 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not major enough for all these articles. One for each country is fine, not one for each year and each country. --Bduke 09:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All of Them - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - many of them are still in the stub form, but for example the Poland article is fairly developed now (though still can be expanded significantly). Poland participated 11 times so far, so you would have at least 11 times this (plus other information) in Poland's article, which would make the article big and cumbersome, and therefore we would probably have requests for splitting into individual articles... Do also note that all these articles were created following the request to shorten and clean up the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article.
We have articles on each municipality of San Marino, which are probably all shorter than the shortest article on the list above and nobody in their right mind starts a campaign to delete them - they can all be developed. Bravada, talk - 10:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - This was added at the top of the page by User:203.96.106.90 and might be considered a voice in this discussion. It certainly does not belong at the top of the page, so I moved it here (Bravada, talk - 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)):
-
- I think these pages are very interesting and they should not be deleted!
- Merge any and all individual per year by country articles into a series of articles in the form Country X at the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest 19XX. An overall article per year and an individual article per country are surely enough. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No point of deleting them! Empty2005 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Move to either France in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds(talk) 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete all not encyclopedic. fancruft abuse of wikipedia. Bwithh 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it is all verifiable factual information, and to include this either information in a single page per contest or a single page per country would mean those pages get very big very quickly.- fchd 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is not whether the information is verifiable, it is whether it is notable, and whether, if notable, it belongs in this structure, or in the biographical structure. A media circus in one year does not make something notable, see all of the UK years 1957-2000, for what they are worth now.
- IMO, they are certainly more notable than the subject of today's featured article, an American High School. - fchd 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is not whether the information is verifiable, it is whether it is notable, and whether, if notable, it belongs in this structure, or in the biographical structure. A media circus in one year does not make something notable, see all of the UK years 1957-2000, for what they are worth now.
- Delete all, no need for them. --Robdurbar 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, I must say despite voting delete for the previous Eurovision-related AFD due to lack of information. This year's contest is a current event and is expected to have more coverage on Wikipedia than before and will be updated quickly. Well, when the event ends, the main article will be very long and if all the countries pages are on the main article, it takes up excessive space on the article. --Terence Ong 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all This is a huge event in Europe, at least as notable as most of the pop culture stuff that is retained without challenge. There is too much to merge into one place, and it couldn't be properly categorised if it was merged. There is a template to link the individual articles, which is a far more user friendly way of connecting the material than converting it into one article - which would be likely to breach the article size limit in any case. Osomec 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia covers stuff at this level, and I don't have a problem with that. Way more notable than things like computer game characters which appeal to a narrow demographic that is over represented on Wikipedia. Nathcer 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete non encyclopedic fancruft. --Strothra 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, the case for deletion was not made. These articles give details on how each country came to choose its entry into the contest. There is no reason to merge them. --Asbl 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all These are decent sized articles in many cases. Twittenham 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. I hold no brief for Eurovision, but a good number of these articles are not stubs, and altogether they will be too large to be merged into a single - and horrible messy - Eurovision 06 article. In addition, this is f the main article is the place for the details of how each entry was chosen - which I think it isnt. Hornplease 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Extremely tenuous delete all per nom. But only if the other articles can be merged into a main article like France in the Eurovision Song Contest. Otherwise keep. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all some good articles there, other events have this sort of coverage on wikipedia --Astrokey44 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, passes verifiability, notability, needfulness and "fun" tests. Vizjim 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - see the other Eurovision-related Afd's. -- Hirudo 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A good set of articles. Athenaeum 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article isn't that large with most of the space taken up by tables. Merge infomation into the artists own page (for example merge Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 mainly into Silvía Night and put Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 into Arsenie Todiraş) and country information into Eurovision Song Contest 2006.Rex the first talk | contribs 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this was part of phase 4 of the Eurovision Project, national selections for each year are very intresting take a look at **United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967,**United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963, etc. Wikipedia is an almanac for this kind of information, the 2006 entries are more complete, but others will be dealt with in time.
- Actually being part of a Wikipedia project is not a reason to keep. This vote is testing whether or not Phase 4 was well founded in the context of the whole Wikipedia. Bejnar 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення)- Keep, very notable in their respective countries. Verifiable, notable, people care about this stuff, Wikipedia is not paper, ... What would be the American equivalent, deleting all American Idol subarticles? (No, of course I'm not proposing that.) Weregerbil 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as I agreed with the forking of content because the content was becoming unwieldly large in the main Eurovision 2006 article. MLA 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep They are not doing any harm, and some countries would need very long general articles, having been in the comp. for 50 years!!!
- Keep They are all part of one of the goals for Wikiproject Eurovision Greekboy 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:22, 1 June 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VNNTU
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Non-notable student organisation, best known for skirmishes with a similar group in another university. Google for "VNNTU" shows only 70 unique Ghits. [15] No source for the claim that they are "one of the largest Vietnamese student societies in a university outside Vietnam." Prod contested, with the explanation: "Remove the proposed deletion because i don't agree that VNNTU is not a notable student organisation. It is an organisation of about 500 bright and talented students." Delete unless they can be shown to be any different from the other 1,234 groups of "about 500 bright and talented students" in universities elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Any of you guys here read Vietnamese? JohnT155.69.5.236 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Precedents for deletion of non-notable student organisation articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Limerick History Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be of local interest only. Student organizations often make it into local news for pranks and the like. --Fuhghettaboutit 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. How about the fact that VNNTU is one of the two biggest Vietnamese bodies in Singapore?
Although the premier role of the organisation is to help Vietnamese students in NTU to get used and adapt better to the environment, it also plays an important role in bringing the Vietnamese people, which has been shut out for many years, towards the rest of the world. I have seen many good activities of VNNTU aiming toward fostering awareness about the Vietnamese culture and Vietnamese people.
4 years ago, it is surprised that although the two countries (Singapore and Vietnam) are not far away (only 1 hours 45 minutes flight), most of the Singaporeans had very little or no idea about how their neighbour country is like. When asked many mistook that the Vietnamese people are Chinese ethnic and speak Chinese; whereas many others think that Vietnam is still in war (the last war was ended in 1979)... Nowadays, I think that the image of the Vietnamese people has been more well-established in Singapore, thanks to VNNTU and its sister organisation, VNCNUS.
As for the claim that VNNTU is one of the biggest Vietnamese organisation in the world by the author, I would like to correct it as "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world". Hopefully I can find some proof to back up this claim soon..
202.156.6.54 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Would any of your statements about VNNTU be verifiable through sources other than the group's records? If no reliable sources can be found for the article, :( :( For articles about school societies that demonstrate the notability we're looking for, take a look at OUCA and Cambridge Union Society. Kimchi.sg 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable Bwithh 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable, although I applaud the aims. I must add in an aside that claims re a 'classy' and 'advanced' voting system really should be referenced. (A reference would not affect my opion that this is NN, BTW.} Colonel Tom 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I speak Vietnamese if that means anything. I doubt that a uni student group can be influential in "bring the Vietnamese people .... towards the rest of the world" - can you provide sources that show many people identify their knowledge of Vietnam with VNNTU? Probably awareness between Singapore and Vietnam is due to things like ASEAN, APEC, SEAGames, etc, trading and tourism. Also - "bright and talented" is not particularly relevant unless they have won lots of academic competitions, etc, which does not appear to be the case. As to being "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world", I'm sure this is wrong, the biggest would all be in Vietnam by a long, long way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 30 May 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.
- 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 eventology, Eventological language, Event-terrace, Eventological distribution, Glossary of eventology, Set of events and random set of events and Set of random events and random set of events, apparently keep Indicator function, simple function and random element. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eventology
It's self-promotion of User:Helgus, author of most of publications (with a few of graduates). It's non-notable in Russia, and not cited by other people --Vladimir Volokhonsky 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It cannot be found on Google (what CAN be found on Google, besides Wikipedia, is a lot of links to a page about an event-management firm for corporations, with this name). No papers with this word on ArXiv, one paper on MathSciNet, and not by Vorob'ov. Vorob'ov himself does not appear on either of these. Since I can't find any of the cited papers, and presumably couldn't read them if I did find them (since they're in Russian) I can't verify any of the content of the eventology pages. The pages themselves don't say anything besides a bunch of recurring buzzwords, the phrase "new direction in probability theory", and a few unexplained mathematical expressions. Nothing on any of the pages tells me what eventology is, what its results are, what it's used for (barring the grandiose generalities in the introduction to this page). I suggest in addition we delete all the articles in only Category:Eventology, since they appear to be nothing more than vanity pages for Vorob'ov. Ryan Reich 13:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think this AfD should be extended to cover the various subpages
- Eventological language
- Event-terrace
- Eventological distribution
- Glossary of eventology
Indicator function- Random element
- Set of events and random set of events
- Set of random events and random set of events
Simple function
- and the category Category:Eventology as these pages loose meaning if the main article is deleted. The two struck out items are in category evetology but predate the the Eventology page. No vote on my behalf. --Salix alba (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, I don't see at all how random element loses meaning if the eventology article is deleted. After all, it is just describing a random variable taking values in spaces more general than real numbers, and that is certainly a valuable notion used basically everywhere. See my extended comment on "random element" below. --C S (Talk) 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with all of the previous statements including those about extending the AfD to the other articles, for the same reasons that Ryan Reich has stated. MBob 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pseudomathematics. Cedars 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Related articles
So, i'm also nominate subpages of eventological theory as non-notable and non-cited. [16]
- Eventological language
- Event-terrace
- Eventological distribution
- Glossary of eventology
Random element- Set of events and random set of events
- Set of random events and random set of events
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Volokhonsky (talk • contribs)
-
- The last three contain no information regarding eventology. Although they lack sources, they discuss generally accepted terms in probability theory. I urge the nominator to withdraw the last three from further deletion consideration as they border on bad faith. B.Wind 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hold the bus!!!
piling article onto article into a catch-all nomination throughout a 24 hour period doesn't do justice to the original nomination and to the people who have to check each of these out.Please don't change the nominations so radically over a period if you want any serious discussion with this (or any other) AfD. B.Wind 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, it wasn't piling on, but the changes over 24 hours are a bit disconcerting. B.Wind 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, except possibly random element which looks like it almost might make sense if I spent more time thinking about it. The definition of random element is claimed to be due to Maurice Frechet, but I can't tell how popular it might be. Maybe I'm piling on ... but, the other nominated articles seem to use a lot of words to not actually say anything that I can grasp; they have general resemblance to topics in topology, measure theory, etc. but fail to indicate how the idea is unique. linas 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete random element, as it is a real term and topic. The Frechet paper is available here (institution subscription maybe necessary). My mathematical French is not so good that I can read this very quickly, but it's basically about random variables with values in metric spaces. In it, he uses the term "random element", and it looks like he's using the term basically as in the random element article. However that is just defining what I believe most people would nowadays just call a random variable (or measurable function with respect to the appropriate algebras). The modern use of "random element" is apparently not quite the same as what Frechet would call it, for example, see the Springer encyclopedia entry. That entry makes it clear that there is indeed something new here, e.g., random element with value in a Banach space is not the same definition as random variable, but involves the dual space. So random element should be rewritten to reflect correct usage, history of the term, and the relevant math content. --C S (Talk) 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the dual space is what the Set of events and random set of events is about, it describes a form of duality between two ways of interpereting the phenomena. --Salix alba (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the article and incorporated some info from the Springer link. I strongly recommend people go and check out the new version. --C S (Talk) 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whats your opinion on the last two, are they similarly salvagable, at first glance the mathematics seems sound. (actually the same article)--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think they have anything really going for them (or it, since they are both the same). Basically some definitions are given, and they appear ok, although it's not clear what the applications are (note: it appears there is at least one typo in the last half, but it's hard to tell, since I don't understand what's happening in the later half of the article). Also, the definitions are basically standard - special cases of the notion of random variable. So I suspect the mathematics is already essentially in the body of Wikipedia, whereas the terminology is non-standard. Random element has a couple of things going for it: 1) it's a real term with some history behind it 2) Usage seems predominantly for random variables taking values in Banach spaces, with a good amount of literature on this topic and using the term "random element". --C S (Talk) 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whats your opinion on the last two, are they similarly salvagable, at first glance the mathematics seems sound. (actually the same article)--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Just curious, is there any connection between Complex Event Processing (CEP) and Eventology. Thanks--67.52.61.50 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, i think i'm really carried away with this AfD, because my own statistics experience in psychology allow me only suspect something wrong and para-scientifical in eventological articles... We deleted eventology and some co-articles in ru.wikipedia because of little notability, even for experts.--Vladimir Volokhonsky 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it is para-scientifical, just applying a novel approach. Possibly the biggest problem is the name. If the article had been called the theory of random events it would not seem so suspect.--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- relist when consensus on article to be listed is reached. --Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Many thanks for very useful discussion. I am going to rename
- Eventology
Theory of random events - Eventological language Language of random event theory
- Eventological distribution Distribution of a set of events
- Glossary of eventology Glossary of random event theory
- Set of random events and random set of events Duality between a set of random events and a random set of events
- Helgus 22:22, 31 May 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.
- 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. A great big thank you to all the Cholmelians who made Highgate Deletion Day 2006 such a rambunctious success! Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Highgate School Muck Up Day 2006
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-notable event, unverifiable. -- Tangotango 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Per nom Arbiteroftruth 10:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- nn event. - Longhair 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not DeleteHow can you delete this?! It's an historic event, and well known by many in the London fraternity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.106 (talk • contribs)
- Delete an unofficial event at a single school could never be notable. Might actually be a subtle form of attack page by implicating those named at the end of the article in being involved with vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Almost BJAODN? DarthVader 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true. --Starionwolf 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable school event. It might be worthwhile on having an article on Muck Up Days as they are a common custom at least in Australia. We had one at our school for the final day before the NSW High School Certificate at Mulwaree High School. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd point you to the article, but I don't want to violate WP:BEANS. --Rory096 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As above. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I like DarthVader's suggestion of BJAODN. Molerat 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete I feel, along with many that this is a valuable page, not only is it informative, it had no vandalism involved within it(as all events were tidied up that same day), and the school were fine with everything that happened, and even sponsored many of the events that took place. This should remain on Wikipedia, as it is educational for other schools, and in order to inform those who do not know about or what a //Muck-up Day// is. Please do not delete this as it represents a memorable and historic year for Highgate School and it's history.The event is clearly true, and can be further proven by the photographs. why is this a non-notable event or an article that falls under "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense"? Having read both articles for both notability and BJAODN, it clearly doesn't fall into either category! within our school, and most other public schools in the country, a muck up day is common for every final year on the last day. The day consisted of fun, no vandalism and pure enjoyment between teachers and students. Within the discussion section, people are arguing for their desire for the article to NOT be deleted.jackp59
- Do not delete -- Details about this event should be published for others to read about. There is very limited information available about Muck-up days on Wikipedia, on the internet or even published anywhere. Could I request that User:Starionwolf classifies his comment that "I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true". Also that User:Starblind classifies his comment that it is a 'subtle form of attack page', and where he thinks any vandalism took place? -- Payneo 01:16, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
- Delete per above Hobbeslover 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non notable event (before someone comments that I only have a few edits, please see my talk page as this is a new account, thanks) --Tim1988 09:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete -- How can you even think about deleting this?! This is a notable event for thousands in the North London area! Many people want to hear about this event and other muck-up days in general - and at the moment, there is a serious manque (as the French would say) of informative articles. This is a very important event for many people, and the fact that some people are considering this for deletion offends and frankly disgusts me. -- Dave 12:02, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
- Delete. Non-notable event. Markb 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteDon't know why this would be deleted, its all factual and will be read by thousands of people.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.80.86 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteIt was an important day for all who were involved and deserves to be remembered in history. It really was special... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.kennedy (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deletePersonally I feel that the contribution is worthwhile, and will be widely admired, read and is a brilliant article describing a truely memorable occasion, please fo not delete this article, User: Jackp59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteThis item tells much about the changing nature of the British Public School (oddly in the United Kingdom Public Schools are Private Schools for historical Reasons.) We have all been left with an impression of the dark and dingy days of the Public School in the days of "Tom Brown's Schooldays." Here we see a lively and vibrant community. Don't delete such an informative piece. ivanalias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteFollowing the statement "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.", changes have been made to this item in order to improve the introduction. Does it require more alterations and aditional comments??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteA memorable day that has been celebrated throughout London's school community, an example of this supposedly unofficial event practiced throughout the UK should not go unnoticed on an online encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiej (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteThis is a truely worthwhile page and links nicely to Muck-up day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteAs another comment states, all that is written in this article is factual account of the day's true events. None of the material is crude or explicit, merely a record of a day that means so much to so may people. Deleting such a page would therefore prove to be unnecessary and unfair on all those who wish to reminice about such an enjoyable occasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.169.188 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not deleteSurely the number of comments on this page demonstrates the 'importance of the subject matter'. It was not only an important day in the history of one of the oldest educational institutions in Britain, in the history of the tradition of muck-up day, but also hugely important to all those who witnessed the day and were involved in it.b
- Do not delete -- I am a keen wikipedian and one who was a witness of the event. In my, humble, opinion, it has a right to be on wikipedia as it was the most successful muck up day for a long time and the culmination of 13 years of highgate for many students. However, perhaps what makes it stand out most is that it marked the first completion of a co-educational 6th form- something which defied hundreds of years of highgate's history and made this day so monumental. This is certainly a notable event. Seb. SebM 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete-- An important memory for all those involved. The actions that took place on the day were in no way insulting or demeaning to any party and the spirit of the day was enacted in a manner which was light-hearted and regarded well by both teachers and students alike. Given the significant amount of time and effort put into the events of the day, i do not see why the event should not be recorded on this website. It offends no one and those wishing for it to be deleted need to understand that the memory of the day is important for the students, for the teachers, and for the future Highgate School pupils. This article is not promoting or advertising an act of vandalism, but an act of celebration and unity amongst the pupils. 86.142.25.244 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Dean M
- Do not delete -- I cannot see any good and justifiable reason for deleting this page - it is far better constructed and referenced than many other so-called "legitimate" events pages on wikipedia. The event was very real, and marked an important milestone of the first cohort of girls to graduate from highgate. It was also a very special day for all involved. This is certainly a most notable event!! Luc
- Do not delete -- Definitely a notable event, and one which a site like wikipedia should record the history of. Would be a shame for something as enjoyable and fun as this to be lost in the sands of time. Worthy of record. SidVonDagger87.80.30.125 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, not verifiable, and too POV. Great material for a personal page; inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Best of luck to the authors in moving it elsewhere. --William Pietri 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Muck up. Delete. CalTech Ditch Day is much more verifiable and notable, and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Interesting to note that all these 'keen wikipedians', with their strong views on what should, or should not be included, don't know that the convention is to argue for keep, NOT do not delete. Markb 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oddly, a lot of anons and whatnot who come to WP for AfDs say "do not delete." I wonder why. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke it to the moon. High schools are barely notable, their pranks certainly are not. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm awestruck of the effort you put in to the whole thing, and the potential deletion of the article doesn't negate that. You have plenty of memories already of the event, however. Try not to stress too much about it. --0zymandias 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete IT WAS JUST A BIT OF FUN! LET US CHOMELIANS HAVE A WAY TO REMEMBER OUR LAST EVER DAY OF SCHOOL! Hugo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.102.1 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I see no reason as to why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia, in essence, is exactly what its slogan says it is i.e. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Encyclopedia's are a source of information and tend to be useful resources. However, Wikipedia, as highlighted by Payneo, has limited information on Muck-up days in general and I see absolutely no reason why this article cannot be used as a prime example of what muck-up days should be about: having fun, having a laugh and making it one of the most memorable days of the school calender. This particular muck-up day is a milestone in Highgate School's history, as it is the first time that girls have participated in the tradition and this surely makes it a notable event, as not only does it mark the start of the evolution within Highgate but also shows how far Highgate has come not only as a school but as a community. I beg to differ and would like to ask User:Starblind where and in what form the "vandalism" actually took place? Also, User:Starblind goes on to say that Muck-up day is an "unofficial event at a single school". However, this statement is false as A) it is a traditional event at Independant Schools in the UK and so B) occurs at schools nationwide and internationally as User:Capitalistroadster points out that they had on at Mulwaree High School in Australia. I hope that all these factors are taken into consideration and are acknowledged when deciding the outcome of this article. Alem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.93.98 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete The muck up day was purely a day of enjoyment between friends and teachers, and anybody saying that this should be deleted is appaling because it hasd nothing to do with them and the names for-mentioned have done nothing that would incriminate themselves.DON'T DELETE!!bassyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.28.95 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Entirely accrurate site. Provides Factual list of Events, Menus and People. No names that have been mentioned have done so without consent. Photos prove accuracy of comments, and the fact that the day happened. Link to general muck up day information provided. Notable event for general population of North London, notable event for all public school pupils in England,notbale event for the OC Society, link provided. Inoffensive, Accurate and Notable. Surely this meets all criteria. Also please notice that the people creating the page have acted entirely honourabley in producing it, and also made every effort to meet criteria, notable adding footnotes on your request, adding sources, adding tiotles and clarity and now offering 3 paragraphs on the importance of the event. Thegreatbriton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatbriton (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm afraid it's not a site, it's an article in an encylopedia. It seems like it belongs on its own website, many companies offer free hosting for this kind of stuff. I can see you made an effort, but unfortunately the event does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. Molerat 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above "Do not delete" votes and per nom. feydey 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is historical man. these bois r top top jokerz. this is crapypedia if they don't let this article stay up. dis is d bombest article on d ole of wiki(d)pedia. it only wikidpedia if u let dis article stay up boi- or else it's crappypedia n i wont eva chat to u again. Seriously i wil terminate my relationship wit previously-widi(d)pedia. Trust boi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.115.251 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC).
- Right. Must not have been too much of a relationship, since this is your first edit. But you are always welcome here. Anyway, delete as a totally non-notable event at one school. Grandmasterka 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so some ppl think this is a joke, however, i've said on numerous occasions that this article shouldn't be deleted, and fair enough you may think it is a non notable event, how can I prove that it was? Some people are taking the piss, but in all seriousness, how can we keep this article on wikipedia? jackp59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs)
-
- It doesn't belong here. However, if you don't want to lose all your hard work (and a lot of effort has been put into the article), I recommend you save the article on your hard drive (to keep a copy after deletion) and resurrect it on an external website. Rory096 suggested Wikia hosting an entire wiki just for your school. I think that's a good idea. Molerat 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not DeleteWhile this article may seem to be of limited importance I would argue that this is not the case. From reading what is frankly a very well written and witty account I have a number of observations. Firstly with over 100 people involved in the proceedings it seems that this page is not without a solid base of interested viewers. Secondly, coming from England I am well aware of the tradition of muck-up days and it is in this light that I believe this page is of great use. Many pupils take the opportunity of leaving school to cause violence to the local community, run riot and generally create unberable havoc. However the ideas used by the Highgate pupils were neither destructive nor troublesome to locals or staff. Therefore if in future years pupils searched wikipedia for inspiration for their own muck-up days then Highgate school seems like an exemplary example to follow. A final point I would add is the standard of written English in the article would no doubt also act as something which more unruly pupils (who would have already been disuaded from dangerous actions) could learn something from. Well written and commendable, i hope this is not deleted.86.138.120.15 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The concept of a muck up day is a historic and traditional one that has very few articles written on it. This article provides an excellent account of a muck up day that is valuable for all. The event can be verified and the article is informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.3.52 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can it be verified with evidence from a reputable publisher? In any case, the page is original research. Molerat 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous comment. This event happens at schools worldwide annualy. This event is not made up in one day, its got centuries of history behind it, as is explained on the site Thegreatbriton 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The greatbriton
- This is not original research, it adds detail to something that is already present on Wikipedia.Payneo 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and have fun closing this monster. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per all above delete votes. Zaxem 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Zaxem, I would like to remind you that this is NOT a vote.Payneo 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Votes" was a bad choice of words. What I meant to say was that I agree with all the comments made above in support of deletion. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every annual "muck-up day" in every school around the world – and nothing in this article suggest that this muck-up day was more significant than the many thousands of others. Zaxem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- This article provides a prime example of a successful muck up day. Other than this article Wikipedia has less than 100 words about muck up days - events that are part of a tradition for many secondary schools in the UK and across the world (in particular Australia). There is very little published information anywhere for those wanting to find out more about muck up days; this supplys those interested with a great illustration of one. Payneo 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- This would be a good argument for expanding the Muck-up day article on Wikipedia to include more general information about the type of things that commonly happen at muck-up days around the world. But it's not a reasonable argument to justify why Wikipedia should have an article about one specific muck-up day at one individual school whose muck-up days are not any more significant than those at any other school around the world which has them. Zaxem 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- This article provides a prime example of a successful muck up day. Other than this article Wikipedia has less than 100 words about muck up days - events that are part of a tradition for many secondary schools in the UK and across the world (in particular Australia). There is very little published information anywhere for those wanting to find out more about muck up days; this supplys those interested with a great illustration of one. Payneo 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Votes" was a bad choice of words. What I meant to say was that I agree with all the comments made above in support of deletion. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every annual "muck-up day" in every school around the world – and nothing in this article suggest that this muck-up day was more significant than the many thousands of others. Zaxem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The event is unverifiable by the standards of Wikipedia (it cannot be verified by a reputable publisher), and it is not notable (I doubt the event concerns thousands of people, and anyway, many other events concerning thousands of people do not have articles). Molerat 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Cannot be verified"??? 500 pictures will not have been faked 'Molerat'...your argument seems to revolve around the fact that other, more significant events do not have wikis - this is a non sequitur. The article itself also points out that it is of interest to both the many thousands of Old Cholmelians and much of the North London community. It is time to remove the chip from your shoulder and get rid of your prejudices against private schools and their 'traditions'. It is only by working from the bottom-up that Wikipedia serves its purpose. This is my vision of the Wikipedia of the future.Keep129.67.43.240 23:39, 4 June 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JUGSU
delete non notable internet phenomenon, prod tag removed Melaen 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This page was blanked by creator [23], and IMO can be classed as a creator's request to delete. Computerjoe's talk 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above--Jusjih 15:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom - Erebus555
- Delete per nom. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - blanked by author, restored by computerjoe with popups. B.Wind 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per others. Grandmasterka 19:55, 31 May 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.
- 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 as the article provided little context. Royboycrashfan 
19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joe Cazana
Delete non notable individual. notability not established in article, cleanup tag has been in place since October 2005 but no one seems to even want to edit this article. Strothra 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete one sentence article, but not because of nn. He was a wrestler for the now-defunct Smokey Mountain Wrestling organization who deserves a complete article, not this unworkable, out-of-context... (censored). B.Wind 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. {{Nocontext}} would apply here. Grandmasterka 19:38, 31 May 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathan Keith Seeley
non-notable/vanity page Chris 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Possibly a user page? Doesn't appear notable. — RJH (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A bit hard to tell from the content if this is a vanity page or not, but it does appear to be a non-notable biography according to WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, article does seem to simply be an attempt to turn a 'user page' into a main article. Dbertman 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, obvious vanity bio. ("Theatre credits"? Gimme a break...) Grandmasterka 19:26, 31 May 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.
- 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. Royboycrashfan 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Devil Wears Prada (band)
Non-notable band on a vanity label, send it back to the fiery depths of hell. Peyna 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. Another Myspace candidate until they satisfy the WP notability criteria. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Borderline speedy delete. The albums may count as asserted notability to some, but there's no clue that they were anything other than self-released. Grandmasterka 19:20, 31 May 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.
- 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 Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Giant Communist Robots
Non-notable guild. Naconkantari 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep World of Warcraft is a game with 5 million players and this is a very notable group of players. No single guild caused as much debate and contaversy as Giant Communist Robots. I do agree that guilds or clubs usually don't deserve an Wikipedia article, but this is an exception. I was actually suprised when I found out Wikipedia didn't have this article. Titwatcher 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did it cause any influence or significance outside the gaming community? Numerous things cause "controversy" within small communities, rarely are they worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Even if it did not... the controversy is understandable by those outside of the gaming community, and opens an important debate that transends the gaming community. Again, I am not a member of this guild, and don't personally know it's members. I came to Wikipedia to FIND information about this issue for a paper on Video games and censorship. No information was found. Titwatcher 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Did it cause any influence or significance outside the gaming community? Numerous things cause "controversy" within small communities, rarely are they worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. A brief mention in an online article is certainly not notable. This article has already been speedied a few times, so speedy again if there is relatively quick consesus. Wickethewok 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment what exactly is notability in Wikipedia? I am not even a member of this guild and I heard of them. My intent is to get this article to FA status just to prove how much notable this guild really is. Titwatcher 21:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being an FA doesn't prove notability, it proves article quality. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- No significance outside the gaming community, not worthy of coverage in a general encyclopedia. Delete.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the sort of thing you can create a personal webpage about. Adam Bishop 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, G4 and A7. I don't care if he doesn't like that; it falls under those criteria. --Rory096 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft. There's something similar there about gay/lesbian clans. Do not speedy delete - reposting does not apply, as it was only speedy deleted, and this makes a claim to notability. (I'm assuming that's what your letter-number combos mean.) --SPUI (T - C) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge as per above. I don't think the guild itself is inherently notable, but the controversy around it is. I've never heard even played World of Warcraft but I remember hearing about this from somewhere Masterhomer
21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete WoWcruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "used to be"... "was disbanded"... Not notable and not getting any more notabler. (What? It's a word!) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft Bwithh 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete lol.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There's nothing controversial; the guild was in violation of the game's naming policy, and was treated accordingly. MD87 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft per User:SPUI. robchurch | talk 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, The main content has already been placed in Video game controversy Naconkantari 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WoWCruft. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article, best not to place content elsewhere. Rather unencyclopedic. It's one thing to have an article about a game. But this is a level or two down from that... -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke it to Stonehenge. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge it makes sense to merge this with Criticism of World of Warcraft. Clearly people seem to have a general issue with how Blizzard is handling guilds. Ash Lux 22:36, 28 May 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.
- 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 KEEP. RadioKirk talk to me 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Corrupted Blood
Only assertion of notability is a 47 word blip on NPR. No scientific analsys, no fancy scientific notation, just gamecruft. Should not be included on Wikipedia. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have no interest in World of Warcraft or in fact any game but I do find this page fasinating. I also have a great feeling it will become far more relevent some time in the future, possibly the reaction to pandemics and other world catastrophies will be tested on these MMORPGs and computor simulation and this particular event could be cited as one of the idea's main origins.
- Keep Although it has it's flaws, it's still a great article and should stay. It has been featured on Portal:Warcraft aswell. Instead of voting for deletion, you could have voiced your concerns with the article, or even help work with it. Havok (T/C/c) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - this is an in-game storyline, and, while it may have a significant effect in WoW, it won't anywhere else. It is also my no means innovative or notable in CRPG terms - so a big MMOPRG decides to give its players the plague; many MUDs have done this before, and it wasn't worthy of an article. Ideally, the content would be moved to a WoW-specific place, although I fear the fanwikis will have already covered it in greater depth. --Sam Pointon 22:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the notable thing about this is it wasn't a case of "a big MMOPRG decides to give its players the plague," the outbreak was not intended nor expected by Blizzard. --Stormie 04:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - we have articles on other game events and plot details. --Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - here are some stories from the media: BBC, The Register, Wired, Ars Technica. Many more news outlets covered this. jaco♫plane 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. while, normally, this would be a somewhat useless blip about a video game, this is actually a fairly monumental thing, and the media attention more than allows for its being kept. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Your argument defeats itself. Having NPR, being a respectable news source, covering something helps to establish it's notability. Corrupted Blood is an excellent example of unintended consequences in software engineering. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable and unique incident. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Viriditas. --Falcorian (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem with articles about WoW, is while they may be gamecruft, WoW has such a huge following that it is inself not evovled to a game but some sort of hyperreal culture. It should be documented. Masterhomer 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Fairly significant, and it had a lot of coverage, it's also a little too specific to be merged anywhere. - cohesion 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The nomination's claim that "only assertion of significance is a 47-word blip on NPR" is nonsense. Noting the mainstream media coverage that Jacoplane mentions, and the huge impact this has had on the World of Warcraft community, this does not appear to be a well researched nomination, and indeed looks to be a trademark use of "cruft" to mean "I've never heard about it, so delete". All in all, looks to be a major keeper. Iff that fails, I'd suggest splitting off the "Hakkar the Soulflayer" entry from List of Warcraft characters and merging this, producing a nice solid, if rather confused article at Hakkar the Soulflayer. Regardless, I think this should be kept and that issue dealt with seperately, if it needs to be dealt with at all.--Sean Black 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's 40 words on NPR. Not a article, not a particulary selective news source. With some shows I could get the same if I said I was a fairly common listener on his birthday and played my cards right; Does that make me notable? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did you even read what I wrote? Its been demonstrated clearly that its far more than just "40 words on NPR." Please stop blatantly fabricating the media coverage of this topic.--Sean Black 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It might not be notable to you, but it is notable to the six million World of Warcraft-gamers out there, aswell as the countless millions of MMORPG players and even regular console and computer gamers. Even if you don't see the notability in something, does not make it any less notable for everyone else. Havok (T/C/c) 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: If one were to examine the article in question it is actually a synopsis of the accompanying audio file, a roughly 10 minute segment. I found it to be rather insightful for a non-gaming media source. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep As someone who has never played Warcraft I heard about the plague through Slashdot. Adam Y. 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I do not play WoW, yet I still found that article interesting and relevant. Miguel Cervantes 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It's part of the Warcraft history and thus, lore. And I don't really understand what you mean with "No scientific anal[i]sys, no fancy scientific notation...", cause this disease is NOT a disease in our world, it's a virtual disease, so it can't have any of those pretty ICD-10 and ICD-9 boxes, where did you get that from? Move the article to /wiki/Warcraft Universe/Plagues, also add an article of the other, more known and actually greater historical Undead plague. --Shandris 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've never played WoW, and I only found the article by random wiki-hopping, but it was still interesting and informative. ralian 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not only an article describing an interesting chain of events inside WoW, but a rare insight into human behaviour during pandemics, as well - and i clearly recall global media detailing the event, with some interest shown by psychologists as well. Besides that, Corrupted Blood is an integral part of the non-fictitious or external history of WoW. Deletion would be an error. Jirziczerny 01:50, May 30 2006 (GMT+1)
- Keep I dont play WoW, but concede i'm a fan of the Warcraft Universe. But that aside I found this fasinating, and granted enough exposure I can easily invision this incidient apppearing in a sociology paper on MMORPG subculture, or even in a paper on video game dynamics. - UnlimitedAccess 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not typical gamecruft. Notable. Bwithh 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per others. - CNichols 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A very good article describing a freak occurrence in a video game world that accidentally ( as in wasn't scripted or planned) was very logical and helped make the game world more immersive and "realistic", making it something that the developers of future games can learn from, either to prevent something like this happening again, or to implement more possibilities of such occurrences... - Ifrit 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per Ifrit et al. Aboverepine 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting, a unique phenomenon, and very well-covered. Grandmasterka 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Interest outside Warcraft. However, more research & text please for comparative purposes regarding disease/virtual disease.Santaduck 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It had some impact outside the game and is an interesting article WCX 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep — while it's very Warcraft-specific and somewhat gamecrufty, I say keep because of its significance in disease research. Also, it's interesting and provides proper context, which allows a non-WoW player to understand the article just fine. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:41, 17 August 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.
- 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 keep. --Ezeu 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
[edit] From The Wilderness
- Delete and merge with Michael Ruppert Behold! another one of wikipedia's non notable publications which seems to make no assertion at all to notability. Strothra 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep certanly notable in its own context. --Striver 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Outlandish as it may be, this website is well-known and deserves an entry, even if it is a notorious conspiracy theory page.--Cberlet 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is an important web site and often cited reference. __meco 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Granted, those works should be cited on the page. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, possible merge with Michael Ruppert. Again, the nom needs to better examine existing coverage before nominating on AfD. -- JJay 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but I go with what the article gives me. If it violates, WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, I nominate it. I don't rely on outside resources, just what's in the article. If it's not encyclopedic and if that fact isn't supported by references, citations, and firm research then it's junk. --Strothra 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly understand that, and I don't doubt that Strothra nominated it in good faith. It looks like any other knot of conspiracist cruft, this one just happens to have been discussed by some reputable people. The page as it was didn't demonstrate that - I added a cite to David Corn's article. I think after the AfD closes, a merge with Michael Ruppert should be considered. Tom Harrison Talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, thank you. Apparently my standards for inclusion are a little too high for some in the community and I will admit that. I just feel that the backbone to a good encyclopedia is strong research and well cited evidence. I changed my nom to delete and merge as I do agree with the merge.--Strothra 02:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly understand that, and I don't doubt that Strothra nominated it in good faith. It looks like any other knot of conspiracist cruft, this one just happens to have been discussed by some reputable people. The page as it was didn't demonstrate that - I added a cite to David Corn's article. I think after the AfD closes, a merge with Michael Ruppert should be considered. Tom Harrison Talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
KEEP - DEFINATELY DESRVES OWN ENTRY SEPERATE FROM RUPPERT'S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.81.88 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. as per Tom Harrison. —optikos 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unimportant and unencyclopedic. We already have a Michael Ruppert article. His newsletter deserves a once-sentence mention in that article, not its own article. KleenupKrew 23:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Site notable: Book summarising site content on 9/11 ('Crossing the Rubicon") in Harvard Baker Library (Business) and non-fiction bestseller. Information verifiable, rare resource. Research articles by date: claim of being a year ahead verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.15.13 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: Per above. Ombudsman 03:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: It's information. Good or bad, it is something which exists. I would certainly like to know why this is even considered something worth deleting... so my question is, why on Earth was it marked for deletion in the first place? --TaranRampersad 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep* This is a very honest and informative newsletter. L.K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.229.235 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and stop nominating stuff that's not going to be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep of course' Anyone calling for the deletion of such a page should be banned from Wikipedia and sent to China to experience "freedom of speech". Shame on you! According to two polls conducted by Zogby , roughly half of the American population wants a new investigation of what happened on 9/11. You are trying to censor half of the American population. I repeat: Strothra and censors like him should be banned! They are enemies of democracy. Enemies of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.68.236.68 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- 9/11, freedom of speech and democracry are not the point here - the point is checking if the website meets the criteria for inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems to be passing, and by a margin too. --Kizor 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, Whatreallyhappend.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.84.160 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete I also find it strange that Wikipedia is seeming to delete some of the most controversial sites like From the Wilderness. Mike Rupert’s observations are based on facts; facts that have basis in mainstream reports. Although I disagree with his peek oil hypothesis, it is a viable argument and one that should not be silenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.54.32 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is seeking to delete? This was the action of a single user and doesn't appear to be working anyway. --Kizor 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Michael Ruppert, as this newletter is not notable enough by itself. A significant portion of this article is about Michael's company anyhow ("They also sell many books and videos ..."). --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep john 07:17, 5 June 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.
- 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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What Really Happened
|
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding four tidles ( |
I am refactoring this discussion. Established editors and anonymous comments will be split for the sake of clarity for the closing administrator. This is pemitted per the deletion guide, "It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." This does not mean, however, that your comment will go unread. The closing administrator will read every comment before deciding. Please remember to sign your contribution by adding four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please remember also to be civil and not attack any other contributor. Please do not edit anyone's comments other than your own. Thanks Naconkantari 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Additional Note: If anyone calls another editor or group of editors "terrorists" or anything else inappropriate, they will be blocked from editing for violation of WP:NPA. This is your only warning. Please keep your comments civil at all times. Naconkantari 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, What really happend
[edit] Established
- Very Strong Delete non notable website. conspiracy cruft. Strothra 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just a note about my deletion nom. This was done per WP:NN, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:WEB. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism (a term which I do not agree with myself - look up the definition of Semitic which is quite diff from its popular usage.) or Bush hating or whatnot. I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so. Wikipedia is not a compendium of pop-culture, rather, it is (or at least attempts to be) an encyclopedia of encyclopedic topics and facts with notability that is substantiated through well grounded research. The article was nominated for deletion based on the merits of the article alone without regard to the politics or content of the WRH website. --Strothra 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- It would have been useful for you to note that in the first place. People have put effort into this article, and they deserve more of an explanation for its deletion than just "conspiracy cruft". 210.10.240.16 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Too bad that all of that "effort" doesn't show up in the article. --Strothra 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep article is plenty notable in its own context. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is ok. Compare to the poke cruft or star wars cruft. --Striver 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - From Wikipedia:Notability (web), Criteria for web content, do people see this as satisfying the first, second, or third criterion? Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. nonnotable. cruft. Bwithh 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not pass WP:WEB. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is detrimental to the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. The conspiracy soapbox is way out of proportion to its importance. Weregerbil 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Name of the website is a bit to mundane to be a good indicative of how popular it is, it gives 4 milion hits, but the creator gets 59 000 hits, more than notable enough, accounting that he is mostly known through his site. --Striver 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Michael Rivero the artist, the movie visual effects creator, the computer book author, ... Those are just from the first five Google result pages. Are these all the same Michael Rivero? Looks like there are a bunch more encyclopedic Michael Riveros out there than the conspiracy blogger. Weregerbil 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)..... Yes it is the same guy as the movie effects creator. Rivero used to work in Hollywood.
- for the record: Michael Rivero, the movie visual effects creator, and Michael Rivero, the computer-graphics book author, and Michael Rivero, editor of WRH, and Michael Rivero, repeated guest on Alex Jones radio program, and Michael Rivero, true American patriot advancing democracy via WRH—all of these Michael Riveros are one and the same person. —optikos 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Michael Rivero the artist, the movie visual effects creator, the computer book author, ... Those are just from the first five Google result pages. Are these all the same Michael Rivero? Looks like there are a bunch more encyclopedic Michael Riveros out there than the conspiracy blogger. Weregerbil 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)..... Yes it is the same guy as the movie effects creator. Rivero used to work in Hollywood.
- Name of the website is a bit to mundane to be a good indicative of how popular it is, it gives 4 milion hits, but the creator gets 59 000 hits, more than notable enough, accounting that he is mostly known through his site. --Striver 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not satisfy any of the criteria for web content. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, an unfortunately popular website. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete conspiracy theory cruft.--MONGO 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep,changed my mind, a popular and amusing website.--The Brain 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above Hobbeslover | (talk)(contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)- Strong unqualified delete with extreme prejudice This flood of users is in itself all the more reason to delete, per Naconkantari. Also, fails WP:WEB per many other users; seems to be a disorganized blog about, well, nothing. Delete delete delete. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non notable conspiracy theorism Makgraf 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, Wikipedia should list facts, all of them, everything however controversial, however disgusting to the one or the other, read the entry on censorship.--Ratatouille 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, per nom, contra sockpuppet claque. -- Karada 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Egads, people! I could see why this page was up for deletion if it was on the Chinese Wikipedia. I suppose it was only a matter of time. Not that it's a great article, it isn't. But deleting it should be a last resort. R Harris 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- User has about 10-15 edits. --Rory096 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, As long as the article can be/stay non-POV, I don't see why it can't be kept. If the mainstream media can have articles describing their operations, why can't WRH? - EmiOfBrie 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Clean up--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete If a website has to flood the AFD with visitors to get it kept, then it is not notable. Also, the site has an Alexa rank of over 9,500. Naconkantari 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- You treat Alexa rank as though it is a statistically-representative sampling of the population at large, where the % of WRH readers who have Alexa installed is approximately the same as the % of the general population on the WWW who has Alexa installed. Alexa counts page rank only via those people who install the Alexa toolbar. The Alexa toolbar is spyware (as fully described in the terms of use: "COLLECTS AND STORES INFORMATION ABOUT THE WEB PAGES YOU VIEW, THE DATA YOU ENTER IN ONLINE FORMS AND SEARCH FIELDS, AND, WITH VERSIONS 5.0 AND HIGHER, THE PRODUCTS YOU PURCHASE ONLINE WHILE USING THE TOOLBAR SERVICE" [capitalization due to Alexa, not me]). WRH is a website whose primary purpose is to disseminate evidence of how various powerbases are acting in ways that are contrary to the individual liberties that were supposedly protected by the founding fathers via the U.S. Constitution. The typical WRH reader is a person who (I claim) is inclined to entertain the possibility that some government agencies and some corporations are acting badly. Wouldn't such a person be concerned about an Alexa terms-of-use agreement that in plain language announces that the Alexa toolbar collects information about their every activity on the Internet, where a (possibly foreign) government could tap into that collected information? I claim that the typical WRH reader would not install Alexa because the East-German-STASI-like possibility of current or near-future abuse of that collected information by FBI, by NSA, by the military, by foreign governments, and by corporations with which Alexa has contractual relationships far outweighs any perceived benefit of Alexa to the individual. Thus, Michael Rivero considers the Alexa page rankings for WRH to be skewed to under-representing how many hits that WRH has per unit time.[45]. Think about it. If a person were to believe the news-reports published every day on WRH of abuses of power, then wouldn't that person be fearful of abuse of the vast collection of personal information that Alexa harvests to the point that the Alexa toolbar would not be installed on that person's computer at all? Alexa page rank for WRH would be counting only A) those careless regular WRH readers who did not read the Draconian Alexa terms of use and B) those casual interlopers who are not the regular WRH readers and C) those who became regular WRH readers after their first several visits with the Alexa toolbar installed and then decided to de-install Alexa for abuse-of-power concerns. —optikos 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. --
Daniel Davis 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) - Keep and Clean up WRH is an essential resource for a great many people. Its relevance is clearly shown just by the number of people engaging in ad-hominem attacks on its editor, not to mention its huge readership and relevance.flyingCoyote
- User's first edit in a month, and about 40 before that, nearly all to David Peel. --Rory096 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Does not satisfy any of the categories for Notability re: web content. Bastique▼parler voir 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh. I knew when I saw all these articles pop up on here that the shite would start to fly...
Weak keep- seems notable enough to survive, and if we keep it maybe that ever-growing rancid meat smell will go away. So, is Wikipedia a lefty bunch, or a righty bunch, or what? Someone please make up their mind so I know which political leaning to put in my edits, okay? Tony Fox 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changed my mind. Merge to the author's article sounds reasonable. Tony Fox 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and Clean up User:Twinpinesmall This article is in dire need of constant policing by Wikipedia members, so as to ensure a neutral point of view, and no political leanings. If this article were to be deleted, just because a few immature people cannot stand to see any information on those they disagree with; it would COMPLETELY defeat Wikipedia's entire purpose and raison d'etre. The problem is not this article, but rather the misguided belief many Americans have; that there should be one set of morals, ethics, and laws for people with a "D" after their names, and another for those with an "R". As long as ANY article is unique in its subject, does not make unsubstantiated claims, and is not one-sided, then it must DEFINITELY be kept, as part of the world's one true wealth: knowledge.Pine 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- User has a handful of edits over a couple months. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Naconkantari. Note that the Alexa ranking is around 10,000. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't seem notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. All lies, but notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep appears notable in the realm of conspiracy theory website (an admittedly small and unstable realm). - CNichols 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If this is pop-culture, so is half of Wikipedia. Just because you personally don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for other people. Opposition to the mainstream view is certainly worthy of retention. Octavius 0901, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User only has a handful of edits spanning over two years Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, verifiable, and appears to satisfy WP:WEB just fine. --Hyperbole 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment On what grounds? No one here has cited exactly HOW this article satisfies WP:WEB Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up This site is notable, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. It is popular enough, and has been around since the Clinton administration, when it was created shortly after Vince Foster's death. The fact that its popularity has only increased since the Bush administration makes it a notable website. However, it needs definite clean-up, expansion, citing of sources, and as many viewpoints (pro, con, and inbetween) fairly presented as possible before it will be a decent article. Right now, it is currently a partial mess. --CGally81 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Michael Rivero for now. After doing some in-depth LexisNexis and NewsLibrary.com stuff, I was unable to find a single reliable source which discusses WhatReallyHappened, as you would expect for a blog this popular. However, there is no doubt that Rivero is a notable conspiracy theorist. Information about his blog could be included there. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Michael Rivero for now - per Ashibaka, does not assert its own notability, but Rivero himself manages to eke out a tiny bit of notability for being interviewed by Alex Jones. KWH 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep One of WP:WEB's criteria is awards garnered. Here are the awards that WRH has earned over the years: http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm with links to awarding organizations. Also if WRH is an article that becomes deleted, then perhaps slashdot and truthout and Drudge Report should be deleted as well. Which awards has Slashdot or Truthout or DrudgeReport earned that are more substantial than WRH? (Please do list them below. Nobel? Pulitzer?) As a daily reader of both WRH and DrudgeReport, I find that the view supported by WRH is one of fact-finding by commonfolk American citizens trying to practice democracy the best that they know how, whereas I consider DrudgeReport a propaganda machine that serves well to figure out which emotional froth du jour that we sheeple are to be worked up to. Thus I find it offensive to hear labels of "conspiracy theorist" lobbed against WRH, when what WRH is attempting to do is expose facts and evidence that do not fit with the prevailing conventional wisdom. I hold WRH up (as do the awards) as brave patriotic activist democracy in action by the little guy. I hold up Wikipedia as much the same. Also WRH is congruent to Michael Rivero as much as Drudge Report is congruent to Matt Drudge. Without their mouthpiece blog, Rivero or Drudge is a nobody. The only reason that Alex Jones interviews Michael Rivero is because of the WRH blog. Alex Jones doesn't interview Rivero for Rivero's technical business conducted in Hawaii. Furthermore, Rivero's WRH-centered interviews by Alex Jones syndication itself qualifies as "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content. Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it. I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time. Looks like censorship to me. (me? 2,500+ Wikipedia edits.) —optikos 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Oh please. The "awards" WRH has won is as non-notable as the site itself. May you please cite these Alex Jones interviews that you refer to? And even on the assumption that this is notable, how is this "multiple non-trivial published works"? Please don't bring other articles into this; we are voting on the merits of THIS article only, unless these other articles are precedent for keep or delete. We are not interested in destroying more content than we are creating as a policy; we are interested in deleting that which doesn't fit into wiki, that is all. "Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it." Why yes, yes we are. This IS an AfD - debating how to destroy it (or not) is the entire purpose of this function Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here are
1011 such interviews published by websites not affiliated with Michael Rivero or with WRH, including video.google.com, podcast.net, PrisonPlanet.tv, AlexAnsary.com, mininova.com, and fourwinds10.com:
- Here are
- Comment Oh please. The "awards" WRH has won is as non-notable as the site itself. May you please cite these Alex Jones interviews that you refer to? And even on the assumption that this is notable, how is this "multiple non-trivial published works"? Please don't bring other articles into this; we are voting on the merits of THIS article only, unless these other articles are precedent for keep or delete. We are not interested in destroying more content than we are creating as a policy; we are interested in deleting that which doesn't fit into wiki, that is all. "Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it." Why yes, yes we are. This IS an AfD - debating how to destroy it (or not) is the entire purpose of this function Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Google video about Oklahoma City Federal Building sourced from WRH,
- Google video about illegal domestic spying within USA featuring Rivero whose only claim to fame on the topic is solely through WRH,
- Google video about evidence of government involvement drug smuggling sourced from WRH,
- Pentagon Footage,
- What Really Happened? Michael Rivero,
- WhatReallyHappened.com Michael Rivero,
- podcast #3,
- podcast #5,
- Richard Stallman and Michael Rivero or perhaps FSF is as un-notable as WRH, and
- Israel versus Iran.
- 2002 transcript of interview with Rivero regarding the WRH phenomenon with introduction of WRH as "one of the most talked about websites to hit the web in a long time"
- Note that in each introduction of Michael Rivero in those interviews, he is introduced as editor of WRH as though WRH is more recognizable/notable than Rivero himself.
- Here are two articles on NewsMax from 1999 and 2002 that site WRH as a notable source:
- Here is a 1997 NewsMax article that showcases in two paragraphs WRH as a notable/substantial source regarding a Clinton-era scandal:
- Regarding other AfDs of the same ilk, it is obvious to me that there is a campaign afoot to censor on Wikipedia the political movement and nonMSM journalism that WRH & Michael Rivero, Rense.com & Jeff Rense, and PrisonPlant.com & Alex Jones represent. A multiple-AfD campaign of sweeping censorship of an entire political movement and of an entire branch of nonMSM journalism is very much worth exposing and very much is a matter worthy of debate on each of that political movement's AfDs. Re:"Oh please." So where is the list of awards the DrudgeReport has earned that I requested? Any Nobel or Pulitzer or Peabody in Drudge's list? So far WRH has entered numerous awards into this discussion whereas DrudgeReport has a big fat zero awards presented here for comparison. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Strong Keep for the same reasons Optikos states above. While I am not a paragon of Wikipedia content creation by any means, I do contribute when I can, and I choose to voice my opinion here. JubalHarshaw 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry for changing my vote back and forth like this. (rm'd earlier edits to clean up) I have to concede the site is notable, and while this article may be targeted for vandalism and POV-pushing, that is not a reason to delete it, but rather a need for it to be improved. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Ashibaka & KWH --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, unfortunately. An Alexa ranking of <10,000 is quite satisfactory. Grandmasterka 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe, but 548 unique google hits isn't. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep SDC 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC
- Delete per nom. - Tutmosis 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep unless we are going to remove all web sites from the Wikipedia. Rivero puts up news items that often scoop the mainstream media by a year. He is an important resource, even if one has to perform some mental filtering. The charges of anti-Semitism are hilarious, but I suppose anything that offends any Jew, true or not, must be anti-Semetic. Sukiari 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just another nn blog. Tychocat 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Just another 'blog that has been on the WWW for over 11 years! as evidenced by this 1997 news article on newsmax.com. (What other 'blog dates back that far?) WRH is the mother of news-headline/article 'blogging outside of MSM (mainstream media). WRH predates the term 'blog. WRH's blog WWWsite predates the DrudgeReport blog WWWsite (ignoring Drudge's early email-distribution-only phase). Indeed, WRH predates Wikipedia as a notable phenomenon in the history of the WWW. WRH defined from scratch the concept of blogging throughout the latter half of the 1990s that became popular this decade. These achievements alone make WRH notable. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - there's something wrong with that newsmax article which claims to be from 1997. Even according to Rivero's site archive [46], whatreallyhappened.com was not formed until early 1999. It previously was his personal site, "Rancho Runamukka", which evolved from prior personal ISP websites. My assumption is that the 1997 newsmax article linked to Rivero's personal site, and then someone edited the newsmax article to replace the dead link with the newer whatreallyhappened.com. KWH 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Just another 'blog that has been on the WWW for over 11 years! as evidenced by this 1997 news article on newsmax.com. (What other 'blog dates back that far?) WRH is the mother of news-headline/article 'blogging outside of MSM (mainstream media). WRH predates the term 'blog. WRH's blog WWWsite predates the DrudgeReport blog WWWsite (ignoring Drudge's early email-distribution-only phase). Indeed, WRH predates Wikipedia as a notable phenomenon in the history of the WWW. WRH defined from scratch the concept of blogging throughout the latter half of the 1990s that became popular this decade. These achievements alone make WRH notable. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - You don't have to accept something to realize it deserves a page...it's clearly notable, meets standards for keeping websites...this is kind of silly.--Tothebarricades 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, massive sock flood. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- request for policy quote/ref Please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a "massive sock flood" occurs on an AfD, that article is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated see last sentence of first paragraph -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, WRH is being implicitly claimed as a vanity article due to the meatpuppets and thus as a matter of official Wikipedia not-to-be-tolerated policy "deserves" automatic decapitation/deletion. Wow! What an excellent tool for censorship of whole articles, especially for topics that are popular with Wikipedia-outsiders! Now all Wikipedians know how best to rig up an automatic deletion outcome for nearly any AfD: just make sure that Wikipedia-outsiders are aware of the AfD of their popular topic so that many defenders with edit-total less than, say, 100 can all be declared meatpuppets that in itself precipitates automatic deletion. Hmmmm, sort of like a hypothetical "justice" system where if too many general citizens show up in the audience of the courtroom, the defendant is automatically guilty of a capital-punishment crime. Welcome to the brave new world! (Perhaps even state-authoritarian Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) himself would not have approved of that level of capricious injustice.) —optikos 15:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated see last sentence of first paragraph -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- request for policy quote/ref Please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a "massive sock flood" occurs on an AfD, that article is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep WRH has been around for more than a decade, a notable feat in and of itself. It also does a fairly good job of listing its sources, something that even we here at WP sometimes have a problem with. As far as the supposed anti-Israel bias, I notice we have articles on Free Republic, Rense.com, Prisonplanet.com and the Drudge Report, which have been known to engage in a little "Elders of Zion" nonsense themselves from time to time. Hey, we even gave Sollog a page, so... Inky 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/Cleanup - Reading the arguments here, it looks like the site does have some notability, if nothing else than for its longivity, but also becuase it's cited elsewhere with a certain amount of regularity. On the other hand, the article as it stands is pretty ugly, and in need of help. But we don't delete articles because they aren't good, we improve them. This one is in need of help, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion. Fieari 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, website promocruft. KleenupKrew 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a bit crazy, but notable none the less. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, per Ashibaka. Lachatdelarue 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly notable. Zocky | picture popups 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous/New
- Please note that the AfD was listed on the What Really Happened website and as a result has brought many anonymous users to this discussion. The website has engaged in what may be seen as a subtle form of vote stacking from their readers/visitors.--Strothra 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Strothra, you got to be kidding. Ever experienced what happens if anybody dares to submit anything on Wikipedia that is only remotely critical of Israel or Zionism? Within a matter of minutes, the entry is plastered with 'Neutrality disputed' and 'Article is up for deletion', with dozens of oh so neutral 'editors' - I call them censors - attacking the article as anything from 'non-noteworthy' to 'anti-Semitic'. They call WikiPedia 'Ziopedia' for a very good reason!!! -- Andrewwinkler 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm very well aware of that. More than you know. That's all I'm saying on that subject. --Strothra 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so."Strothra
Oh, I'm sorry strothra, I must have FORGOT the guardian, telegraph, bbc, cnn, fox and pbs as unverifiable resources, silly me! [/sarcasm]OWNtheNWO 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did you even read the article?? The article cites NONE of the sources you mentioned above. Perhaps you should attempt to improve the article by adding citations from those sources. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- request for policy quote/ref Strothra, please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a website announces that its article is AfDed, that the website is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please see rules against sockpuppeting in the AfD. Deletion is not a punishment it just looks very bad to admins when this situation occurs. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Does it really matter that they posted a story about this "challenge" of a wiki article written by a WRH reader, not Rivero himself? This challenge on the osama video article re-write is baseless. Look at the articles being used to verify the Osama video piece. 95% of them are BBC Telegraph or Guardian articles. There are two articles from informationclearinghouse, which is nothing more than an RSS feed site anyway. Look through the data in the links given and let it speak for itself. Whoever wrote the original article did a shoddy job to say the least. Mabey on hotly contested issues, that are heavily debated you should allow dueling articles on them and let the readers decide which proves their case better based on the evidence presented? Have headers on "hot issues" that link to the opposing article that way until somthing is laid to rest in the majority of wiki users minds the debate is preserved. I think thats the true beauty you guys have as an online encyclopedia that is open source to the public it could allow an up-to-date preservation of current debates. Do what you know is right in the intrest of free exchange of information.
I would add that hobslover seems to have an alterior motive on WRH as he is the only prominent voice against keeping WRH on wikiOWNtheNWO 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- REMOVE: It is clear that WhatReallyHappened.com doesn't belong on Wikipedia and that its content does conflict with the editorial policy of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to maintain consistency then references to substantial resources presenting alternative *conspiracy* versions of history should be banned. If you keep the article on WhatReallyHappened then you are inviting an edit war as people try to edit out the necessary bias from the official article that equates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is better for all that Wikipedia stand firm on its principles. REMOVE the site!
- Keep The article needs to be improved, but 1) the subject doesn't seem to be any less WP:WEB than The Best Page in the Universe or other similar pages and 2) if WP is whittled to just popular, common subjects, it becomes much less useful. 67.20.67.252 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)proberts
KEEP: While it may not meet the criteria, neither does Drudge Report. My understanding of Wikipedia is as an information source, and the article, while it could be improved, does provide information defining the site.
- Keep To my mind, deleting WRH from WP smacks of censorship. I'm not a newbie to WP or Wikia and I'm worried by the attitude of some of those writing above. WRH is a very popular site among all sorts of people, its shortcomings notwithstanding. Although Rivero has strong opinions, some of which sail close to the wind, he's far from being a nutter and he provides one of the best news digests out there. But that's not really relevant, is it. The site is significant, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.204.146 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see anything about this page that would warrant deletion. I view WRH at least twice I day. Even though I disagree with Rivero's comments on several issues, I still regard it as one of the best ways to find interesting new information on the Web. So I think the article is useful if it helps other people find out about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.229.21 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment We are ZOG in a world that hates ZOG. This man is trying to escape ZOG. He does not show correct "Groupthink". Delete him forever! 24.95.110.80
- Keep!, Who will benefit most from the deletion? I read WRH nearly everyday, it doesn't mean I agree with everything in it, I don't see the any anti-semitism. The word "anti" is being thrown about too much, if you don't suport Bush, you are 'anti American' whatever that means, and critisize Isreali policys and intelligence gathering tactics - you are branded the mis-nomer that is 'anti-semite', looks like censorship to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.102.82 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep If I enter whatreallyhappened in google, I get a return of about 284'000 pages which mostly link to the site. Seems important enough to be listed. Removing information about this site on wiki would seem as censorship or maybe a political decision to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.44.15 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep Whenever administrators elect to censor the popular types of expression, it always backfires. It may take a bit of time, but it will happen. Some people just can't take a little constructive criticism, can't they? As usual, it is the 'Traditional Enemy" of truth. Whatreallyhappened.com is a premier blog, and absolutely useful.
- Comment dear administrators and 'wikipedians': somewhere on this wiki it says "[d]isagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures", yet it seems equally important for you to stress above that "the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". thanks for pretending that the opinions of the general public users actually matter.
- All but the last three paragraphs are responsible enough. It is at that point that the article becomes partisan. Just delete those last three. User:Nadienonyma
- Keep Whatreallyhappened.com is the most well known website of its kind. World wide. Just because people think the website is anti-semitic and only contains 'conspiracy stuff', which i think are a false acuisitions, shouldn't be a reason to remove this from an encyclopedia. Q: Is whatreallyhappened.com worth mentioning? A: Yes. Period.
- Keep, This would be an act of censorship to delete this entry. 90% of the articles posted on Whatreallyhappened are mainstream news articles. How can you call that conspiracy theory cruft?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.132.68 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, might not be liked by most of us, but that's not a reason to deny it an article. Definitely notable per popularity, as others have stated. --Ultimus 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep,Truth hurts some people, but we need a lot of truth right now. Our country is in the worst situation of its history on many levels and the mainstream media is gutless and cowering against the real evil-doers. If it wasn't for Michael Rivero's WRH and other unpopular truth-tellers we would be completely in the dark.--Protean7 08:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- This comment was added by User:63.226.197.27.
- Delete, The site does a good job finding articles of interest, but the site is not credible and everything is either a Jewish or American conspiracy. I have no problems with the site, but I dont think its worth recognition of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.204.71 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, This site gives the red coated truth about what is going on in our world. You may not like the truth but facts are facts. I'd like to know who it was that even suggested the removal of What Really Happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.20.95 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, Are you kidding me? There is a difference between Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theory.. do not delete this. Do you fear the truth? Nothing is directed at the Jewish population, it is prone to attack Israel, with good reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.8.197 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, Useful news site. Also the article should be rewritten to remove all the POV stuff about anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.130.231 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.193.3.46 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, unless you consdier journalistic integrity to be anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.183.18 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, Another voice for our freedoms! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.45.235 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, It is not a question of theory or fact. but a question of judgement. WRH does not pick any story just because it goes against the mainstream media. We do have a balanced view of the various opinions. The aim is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.88.249 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, WRH site is where the REAL news is. This is the only website I can rely on for the initial news. Then I go to other websites for further news items. Main Stream Media is the worst place for news. Go there for entertainment only! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, We need to find what is theory and what is fact! Also what is a conspiracy, and what is not. This site will give the answers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, All Rivero does is provide links to credible wire service, magazine, and newspaper articles available elsewhere on web, and he occasionally comments underneath the date given for the article, which is his right under the First Amendment. The charges of anti-semitism are ridiculous. Who is making this charge? Identify yourself. Is this why Rivero's site is up for deletion? I suspect it is. [If you really want to ward off anti-semitism, spend your time making sure the US does not attack Iran and cause WWIII. That will produce anti-semitism at the Joe Six-Pack level the likes of which we will have never seen in this country. Abdicating our judgment, foreign policy, and treasury for the express nationalistic needs of a foreign nation to the detriment of our own is constitutional slaughter, and when that produces the senseless death of American soldiers as a result, as it most assuredly will, American citizens will react in their own interest. You aint seen xenophobia yet. And there is no fundamentalist Christian fantasy that could possibly override it...and while you're at it working to stop WWIII, why dont you ask the US govt to give the $6 BILLION oil reserve for Israel -- $3 BILLION in 2002 prices -- back to the US taxpayers who paid for it. There are common working folk in Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska currently pawning their household goods to pay for gas who need it.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.49.17 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, If the WRH site is deleted, it will certainly give me an idea where Wikipedia is coming from. Wikipedia should not exist, if the WRH page is deleted. WRH is definitely #1 site on the net! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep A lot of effort spent over 'cruft'. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.4.92 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep Well, it seems we already have people deleting these comments, as mine was. Don't give into the unscrupulous censors. They are true freedom haters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fozzy1015 (talk • contribs) .
-
- This user's second edit, both to this page.
- Must Keep!!!! this is must have for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.3.253 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP!!! what are you thinking, man? This entry's a keeper! Everyone knows What Really Happened! What's wikipedia without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.171.157 (talk • contribs) .
- Change To, WhatReallyHappened.com This site has been in existence for a noteworthy length of time. It is controversial, and therefore also notable because of that. Frankly there is no good reason to exclude it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.65.177.185 (talk • contribs) .
- MUST KEEP*** this is a valuable source of information. Whatreallyhappened.com sorts through the disinformation that spills out of Washington DC and around the world and puts real facts instead of propaganda that spews out of the politicians mouths. T.M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.233.20 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep In the interest of free discourse WRH and Wikipedia should peacefully coexist. Its deletion sounds suspiciously like censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stratacat (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's second edit, both to this page.
- Keep You list the Daily Kos, Instapundit, Drudge Report and AmericaBlog. Give me a break. At least it has a better layout than Drudge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.221.131.245 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep The site certainly qualifies as a news compilation site. Many of the news sources on the site are well established newspapers of record, such as The Guardian. I'll agree that some of the sources have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the site still is noteworthy.Zerotsm 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- User's fifth edit
- Keep an informative site that gives a viewpoint from the mainstream media that is not really heard on any other source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.203 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment The references to Jews are too general in nature, think if they were stricken or changed to Zionist it owuld be more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowenmark (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's second edit
- Keep I don't understand the problem with WRH. It's a great source for news, especially in this day and age with a monopoly on mainstream media. If it is a supposed anti-semite related problem, I don't see it it all. I clearly see anti-zionist, but that is obviously different from anti-semitism.
I mean, for real, I live in Brooklyn with a plenty of orthodox Jews, I could line up a thousand of them who are anti-zionist. Does that mean these orthodox Jews are anti-semite? I don't think so. Afterall, these orthodox Jews heed and worship G*d and gain inspiration and insight from the Torah. The Zionist worship a piece of soil, which just so happens to sit in the middle of what a number of religons consider their Holy Land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.149.18 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: Of course, the fact that you're contemplating this act of censorship simply validates Rivero's point: Any questioning of pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian orthodoxy can be safely eliminated by claims of "anti-semitism". Deleting the WRH page would cast suspicion on the rest of Wikipedia's content: What else is being censored by the zionist standard? Andy 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- User's first edit
- Keep: When I first discovered Wikipedia, I realized the discovery of a website that truly empowers an individual's right to freedom of expression as well as an individual's right to freedom of dissent. Wikipedia serves as a reference board, which allows individuals to make up their own mind after rationalizing the opinions/facts others present. By deleting this as well as any other similar article, the utility and power of Wiki is marginalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.13.147 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikepedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.140.4.78 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: WRH is one of the best resources on the web. WRH links to mostly to mainstream news sources. Rivero's comments, sometimes ridiculous, and can be ignored while the links mined for gold. I avoid "conspiracy" sites and would not go near an anti-Semitic one -- WRH is not one of these. Vincent.fx 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- User's second edit
- MUST KEEP: I am a reader of WRH since years. To delete the article about WRH would amount to nothing more than censorship. The article is relevant and objective, except the almost obligatory smear of "anti-semitism" which these days is applied to anybody not willing to accomodate the lies of the wannabe-semites any longer. I propose that the part about Mike being "anti-semitic" be removed in a subsequent edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.161.83 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: This is where I have been getting most of my news from for about 3 years. I have learned of countless other news outlets because of WRH. Delete it if you want but as long as it keeps providing news I will keep reading. Screw if Wikopedia doesn't have it in their database. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.77.139 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: WhatReallyHappened.com will continue to be an important source of information, depsite the virulent Website Denial that is rampant on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.134.11 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: What is this? Communist China? Why are you trying to delete something just because its of a different opinion then the minority? Why not delete Alqaeda. We all know who's relly behind alCIAda.... The good thing about America is that we can say what we want to say right? Say what we believe and be free to express our opinion... Why is this country and a lot of web sites against free speech that doesn't "fit-in" to what the they think is right... No wonder people still think Bush is a good president.. All the post about him that are not good are being deleted...
- Please Keep: These are brilliant excerpts from the mainstream media from all over the world! 70% of all my verifyable informations in the past 5 years come from this site! If you want to avoid censorship, keep it! Only it should show the full Domain-name.com and should be written accordingly. I love Rivero's clever and humorous comments on all his excerpts and links! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.90.147 (talk • contribs) .
- No matter if one agrees or disagrees with the contents present on the site of WhatReallyHappened.com. That is irrelevant in this respect. For Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is tasked with providing any visitor with information regarding any subject. That alone is a sufficient reason for this particular page to remain in existence. 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.238.245.50 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP! WRH must have a place here if free speech is still existent........ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.141.230 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep Of-course keep .. The WRH entry is exactly the type of information which should be on Wikipedia .. if someone thinks it is biased or non-neutral point of view, then let them propose an alternative/correction/addendum. Deletion sounds like the USSR removing someone's image from the Kremlin photos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.22.97 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, Improve: As a longtime newsreader with no personal connection to WRH organisation, my view is that WRH is a diverse, eye-opening and sensible link page to ALTERNATIVE NEWS MEDIA OPINIONS that would otherwise not be found. The site is an enormous resourse that I am gratefull for. Over the last 2 YEARS (that I've been reading WRH), the Editor has been true to an unwritten editorial ethos of fairness, exposure and education. The site is obviously and consistently guided by these principles. There is an often colourful "introductory comment" aside many of the link pages. While these comments are often passionate, I while have never seen any tainted by unreasoned vitriol, bitterness, blind promotion, etc. I salute this fine resource and recommend it - especially to those who are only familiar with the standard, sanitized press that so typifies the media. I cannot imagine any reason why Wiki should delete the reference, short of arbitratry censorship or possibly even pressure from quarters that may not like exposure of many unpretty things.... Rick Bryant, UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ol'Rich (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's first edit
- Keep! If Wikipedia is to remain a community-based service facilitating free speech and avoiding censorship it must keep this site. If you throw out whatreallyhappened you will soon be forced to throw out hundreds of articles on intersting authors and individuals R. Sandman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.48.16.45 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: In dispise of the us of a and it's so called virtues, a fake country which only exists through hollywood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep: Pretty new to Wikipedia, but I would consider donating to you guys if you keep this page. I will sign up. apart from the fact that there is no basis to delete it, the truth as shown by a free press is not "anti-anything" it can not be it's just the news silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, but vastly Improve: The typical unsubstanciated implications of anti-semitism need to be purged and far greater emphasis placed on the site's primary purpose of challenging "official orthodoxy" as "reported" by a so-called main-stream "press". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.149.44 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep this entry and Improve.; If this entry is deleted, then many readers, like myself, will understand that censorship is driving this. I have no connection to the WRH website. I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and What Really Happened. I believe What Really Happened is an excellent alternative news source and not some "conspiracy theory" site as some obviously non-readers of the site have claimed here. And even if one considers it as a conspiracy-theory site as their reason for removal, then that isn't a good enough excuse. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO BE INFORMATIVE. Entry deletions should not be based on whether an entry is "important," "relevant," or "notable" because those categorizations are subjectively and arbitrarily determined by the person who's searching for information at any given moment. If you're going to have superfluous entries on cartoons, anime and local politicians that I wouldn't necessarily include in ANY wiki, let alone encyclopedia, then there should be no problem with keeping WRH's entry. Nor does the WP:WEB notability does apply, because even USER's PERSONAL INFO are included as Wiki. Nor should Wikipedia acquiesce to those who want to press for censorship of an entry based on reasons of political, religious, or governmental affiliation. If you disagree with info posted on the entry -- isn't that what the edit function for? Those who press for WRH's deletion are doing so based on censorship reasons -- just as what happend with Rachel Corrie's play in New York City. If someone doesn't like WRH, then don't read it - and that goes for the site's entry on Wikipedia too. All voices and sources of news need to be heard and maintained -- not just those "sanctioned" by the elitists. And in addition, WRH's entry does not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, No Original Research or Veribility policies. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)USA 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarah smiling again (talk • contribs) .
-
- User has four edits, all to this page.
- Keep: Unless you're trying to promote cencsorship. -- Stewabumer
-
- This comment was added by User:213.42.2.22
- Keep!!:I've been reading WRH for years now, and I've never seen anything else than very good information that you won't find in the mass media, things that need to be known.
Rivero is reliable, has a very good analysis skill and is a threat to the Establishment, the Elite. KEEP IT! User:http://lesnouvellesinternationales.blogspot.com/ 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)barakagaia, reader, May 30th 2006, Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.130.38.52 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP I visit the WRH site twice a day. And Smirking Monkey. A good alternative news source. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanbuskirk (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's first edit
- Keep WRH is a popular, active, and controversial website. Just by virtue of that, it is worth being included. For all the people that consider the site to be anti-semitic, they should especially want to keep the article, since people who get referred to WRH can look it up on Wikipedia and at least be aware of the allegations and controversy surrounding it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article the way it is - whether or not Rivero is anti-semitic is a matter of opinion, but that the allegations have been made is a matter of fact. It just needs to be clearly stated that they are allegations. With the explosion in alternative news websites, It would seem that it would be important for Wikipedia to have information on them of this nature, so people can at least be aware of what biases the website may have, especially when the sites have a large audience. For instance, I have read WRH occasionally for a while, and I never knew that Rivero was a Republican, or that the site was that old. That said, I don't see the point for a second article about Rivero, since he is only notable for WRH. Senatorpjt 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Well, if you delete it, you may. But I WILL NEVER AGAIN USE YOUR RESOURCE, since I'll consider it heavily biased one. And BTW, WRH will not go away, but you eventually will if you continue to censor ideas or free speach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.4.2 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP If you delete this entry and expand your ABCNNBCBSFOX entries then you will lose a huge audience. There are many people on the net that rely on uncensored news and non-corporate news and by deleting this entry you are only supporting the official propaganda of the state. Good Day Sirs/Ma'ams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.219.170 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP I am astonished WRH is even being considered for deletion. It is very well-known, both to friends and foes alike. Criticise by all means, but to ignore it entirely should be anathema to Wikipedia. I'm an English leftie - not at all anti-semitic or racist - and I have WRH set as my homepage. NB: WRH comment on the likes of David Irving and Ernst Zundel tends to focus on the 'they might be wrong but that's no excuse to jail them'. Quite right too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.177.8 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP It's my major news source on the web. It's updated frequently has interesting links to news articles and some science articles from around the country and even internationally, that I would otherwise not be able to find. The site's interests parallel mine, and I'm grateful for its generosity in taking the time to inform me of news that otherwise is largely ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muisy (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's first edit
- KEEP Do not remove this entry - though I would condone the removing of claims of anti-semetism. It is not anti-semetic to point out the blindingly OBVIOUS influence jewish lobbyists and jewish owned media has upon the US Government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's first edit
- KEEP You also need to add to Lord Northcliffe's bio, his most famous quote, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.16.57 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP The websites owner simply comments on the news stories he links to, so his views are not important. What is important is the news stories that are linked, 90% of the material that is posted on WRH is not available in the mainstream media or easy to find in western countries who's agenda the stories do not support. Considering the lies we get fromt he media, this website is a essential resource for anyone wanting to know the other side of the story. To say this website is a conspiracy theorist website is simply wrong, because many people are still asking questions that the mainstream media refuse to touch or answer we are compelled to find the answers elswhere. And this website does that in abundance. Sam, Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.176.115 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP Out of 51 article links posted today, 29 relate to war and war crimes. Hardly "cruft," unless that's what you call uncomfortable current events, or work for the Pentagon.--204.96.170.186 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Note: this comment deleted in past 24 hours. Thanks, vandals! --204.96.170.186 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
- Comment DEFINITELY KEEP IT! The TRUTH must be spread.
- REMOVE WRH or Michael Rivero have nothing to lose if they are denied a befitting entry on a website where anything contrary to the pseudo patriotic goupthink is considered "conspiracy cruft". RiverSide 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, This is one of the most valuable websites that I know of. Though I think that sometimes Rivero has exaggerated ideas, I feel that I can winnow the articles myself, without the good graces of a self-appointed censor, I've noticed that any article in Wikipedia tending to reflect negatively on Jews or Israel, whether the article is true or false, may be vandalized by cyber hitmen, and this seems to be the case here. Thomas Keyes (no tilde on my keyboard)
- STRONG Keep, While I disagree strongly with a lot of things Rivero has to say, his site is well known and a valuable reference for a lot of people (though I often wish they would cross examine his sources better), and I am adamantly against the current demagogic pogrom of VfDing any article that the fasco-liberal ruling cabal want to suppress. I stand with Voltaire on a strong keep.Citizenposse 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. WRH has been a minor phenomena in the web sphere. A good resource for daily news of the the evil empire's activities. I don't see any bias accept towards logically correct moral positions, hence Israel's inclusion based on their own stated goal of a race-based society and the effects it causes. From a wiki point of view, even if one disagrees with MR's viewpoints (he does not editorialise all that much), WRH has been pivotal in forming one of the sources for anti-war, anti-neo-con movement. A definite keep. djr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.148.102 (talk • contribs)
- Keep, This site exposed "extraordinary rendition" long before the mainstream media even knew it was happening. In fact, WRH is often months ahead of stories which eventually get accepted by the main stream media. Rivero is an intelligent man who does a good job separating wide eyed conspiracy nonsense from legitimate matters of public concern. I do, indeed, have concerns about the stridency of his anti-Israel stance. Rivero states that being against the policies of Isreal is not the same as anti-semitism. I think he is correct about that. However, the site attracts anti-semites and that does indeed bother me. Nonetheless if Wikipedia supports freedom of speech they shouldn't even consider deleting WRH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.0.183 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep, Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever if it deletes articles like this one. If you disagree with Riviero, make your case on the article itself -- don't resort to censorship. It's not like Riviero is making up news out of thin air, he links directly to both mainstream and alternate news sources. If Wikipedia is going to start deleting articles that they don't agree with, like so many books burned by the Nazis, then I hope sites like WRH will continue to reveal the hypocrisy of this supposed source of information. I've never considered an anti-semite, and I don't think anyone who has regularly visited his site would either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.80.113 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep, and change WP:WEB criteria to be more in line with the dictionary definition of notable. WP:WEB criteria make no allowance for popularity, or many other criteria that can make something notable. Under these criteria something could be read and depended on by every person on earth and not be considered noteable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.88.61.66 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Wikipedia editors are really pathetic. Why is anti-semitism or anti-Israelism such a big deal to them? What about anti-Catholicism? How come they don't throw out entries that are anti-Catholic? Why are the Jews so sacrosanct? What makes them more special than everybody else? I read WhatReallyHappened.com every day to get the pure unadulterated no-holds barred no-punches-pulled truth and honest realistic commentary. Now I am a traditional Roman Catholic of the Mel Gibson type, and Mike Rivero being an atheist he is also anti-Catholic. Nevertheless, I would believe Mike Rivero in the area of politics and economics and military etc. (everything except religion) before I would believe in anything John Paul II said or Benedict Ratzinger says or any of the crooked child-molesting cardinals, bishops and priests. And furthermore, the fact is that WhatReallyHappened exists and does not depend on Wikipedia for its existence, so whether or not Wikipedia deletes the entry on WhatReallyHappened is nothing more than pure childishness on the part of Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopeia, it should contain information about everything that exists. I am Catholic and I despise Jews and I am anti-semitic (so there! put that in yer pipe and smoke it!) but I wouldn't think of using that as a justification for calling for the deletion of all Wikipedia entries on the ADL or B'nai B'rith or Kabala or Chabad or Israel et al. In fact, I am anti- a lot of things and pro- a lot of other things as well. None of that though should be used as justification to trample on my right to speak freely, nor on the right of the people to be able to obtain information on those subjects. Wikipedia editors should drop political correctness as a guideline for what is contained in Wikipedia and simply write about what is there from an unslanted unbiased viewpoint. Perhaps the entry on Wikipedia itself should say "Wikipedia is an anti-anti-semitic discriminatory encyclopedia that seeks to further the Jewish and/or pro-Jewish agenda and censor any information which is not flattering to Jews or in keeping with that agenda. You can see that in trying to defend and promote one particular special interest group, you are not only setting yourself against everyone else, but you are doing a diservice to all the people (including Jews) who have a right to information and seek that information in Wikipedia, and finally you are doing a disservice to yourself by besmirching your name with the sins of censorship and bigotry masquerading as justice. TruthPathWalker 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Antranik - Yeravan, Armenia
- Strong Keep The reason this entry is up for deletion is that WRH has dared to feature articles critical of Israel. The reputation of wikipedia is increasingly under threat here.
While WRH and others are being attacked Islamaphobic hate sites listed on wikipedia get promoted and protected - see the resurrection of the Harry's Place entry to see proof of that. There is blog that routinely demonises Islam and Muslims yet it gets reposted after it was rightly deleted. Why the hypocrisy wikipedia?
But you know what after reading some of the arrogance frorm your registered users above towards those who come here to support WRH I think I am changing my mind.
Who cares what wikipedia lists.
Go ahead allow yourself to become a zionist approved reference site - then watch yourself disappear into irrelevance. best thing for you after reading the contempt many of you have for your readers. 88.101.187.61 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The usual 'non-notability' fig leaf that the bunch of Zionist agents who have infiltrated Wikipedia normally uses to hide their blatant censureship doesn't do the trick here. WhatReallyHappened.com has a Google Page Rank of 7/10 and an Alexa Page Rank of the site is 9504. Its readership goes into the thousands every day. On Google alone, 5110 pages are linking to the site, a search for the string 'whatreallyhappened' returns 307000. Tough luck, guys. -- Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Some have argued that their reason for WRH's deletion is that Wikipedia IS NOT a compendium for pop culture. But, this argument is a flawed one -- especially since there are plenty of pop culture-related references that Wikipedia already includes, and there have been no calls for the removal of these entries. I'll cite several examples. For example, Wikipedia has an entry for Cartoon Network's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grim_Adventures_of_Billy_and_Mandy">The Grim Adventures of Bill and Mandy</a> and Nickolodeon's <a href="">Fairly Odd Parents</a>. I'm not against ANY pop culture reference being included in Wikipedia, since it's helpful in finding out more about certain shows I enjoy. My argument is that if you're going to include those seemingly superfluous entries, then I can't really see how you can use that a substantive argument for the deletion of WRH's entry. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The credibility of wikipedia would suffer a lot if a popular site with alternative ideas were deleted for non-notability. Also, attacking israeli leaders or organization based on their supposed misbehavings is quite different from being antisemitic. Boborosso 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep totally agree with the "Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" comment. KEEP. Have had many things deleted. also. perhaps we could start our own online Encyclopedia. in which we would accept pro Zionist veiw points and Con Zionist Veiw points. this Encyclopedia only seems to accept Pro. we should get in touch with Rivero for he will have many more hits than this place in the future if the "interested" "wiki's" continue down this old media backward line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There already exists another wiki site that accepts both pro and con views on the topic of Zionism. Ironically, it's called ZioPedia, the nickname given to Wikipedia for its continued blatant censorship towards views critical of Israel. -- Andrewwinkler 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "Anti-Anything" is in the eye of the beholder, and should not be the basis of an article deletion. You are free to disagree with a website's editorial policy, but you do not appear to be in the business of policing it.67.78.247.59 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I will say this one last time. The article was not nominated for deletion due to anything having to do with the website's policies or views or those of the owners'/editors'/operators'/etc. The website's anti-whatever stance was not taken into consideration when nominating the article for deletion. No one has attempted to "police" another website. --Strothra 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. WRH is where I learned of Abu Ghraib LONG before it hit the mainstream media. A source of the Downing Street Memos LONG before it hit the mainstream media. Yeah, why not delete it? It appears to be the only news source we can actually rely on...and that's not good for the establishment, is it? You can't continue to pull the crap you do if you're being uncovered. Sharpinchi-town 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 'couse Tom Harrison says so! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.53.209.10 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE* I thought this was an encyclopedia? What is WRH doing in an online encyclopedia anyway? WRH is simply a website. It's not a historical event or movement. I go there pretty much daily to skim through the posted articles, but it's nothing extraordinary. WRH in itself is not significant. I don't think Rivero creates content, he simply "mines" it from others. I am somewhat disturbed by the worldwide Jewish conspiracy nonsense. I don't support Israel myself, but some of the postings are not simply anti-Israel they ARE anti-semitic. Also WRH has a strong racist anti-immigrant taint. Some of the stuff is good investigative journalism, however, much of it veers off into loony tunes conspiracy theorist fantasy land. Kind of like Alex Jones - ignorant redneck anti-guvmint, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant crap. Where were all of you WRH fanatics when people like me were protesting against US involvement in Central America in the early 80's? Where were you during the anti-apartheid protests of the mid and late 80's? What were you doing during the protests against the first Gulf War? No wonder you're freaked out! If you were semi-literate and politically conscious you would have read years ago about the shadowy and immoral acts of our government and military. WRH and its adherents seem more interested in foaming at the mouth than engaging in creative positive non-violent change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.205.174 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
..or just delete the twaddle above. 'Unsigned'. The only man worth listening to are those not hiding behind their anonymity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if Wikipedia deletes WRH from its website or not. WRH will still be there for readers to enjoy regardless. In fact, if Wikipedia deletes WRH it is Wikipedia that loses another entry and becomes less complete in it's overall coverage of world events, becoming less and less comprehensive with each deletion it does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.205.192 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. "Criticism of the state of Israel is NOT anti-semitic".-Colin powell Arabs are semites, if I criticise the saudis, will you delete my article too? Zionism is a political ideology, not a race issue.
If a mainly muslim country accuses an american who is a dual citizen and who is a christian, of being a spy, are THEY being racist?
- KEEP Calling WRH anti-semetic makes about as much sense as calling some one who oppose china's occupation of tibet "anti-asian". WRH is very critical of Isreal but not in anyway anti-jewish people. -soulinite
KEEP: Very relevant. Great source of non-main stream media. Anyone using the 'anti-semtic' card on Whatreallyhappened.com is insulting the Jews who really suffered and should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.90.14 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP: it will be WIKI that gets ignored, not WRH for 50,000 readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.13.230 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep One of the most credible websites there is. By the way, I notice that all comments endorsing the website - there were plenty of them here last time I looked - have been removed. Who is responsible for this? (All this really proves that the idea of open publishing is a farce.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.60.96 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If wikipedia is going to allow articles on the biased presstitutes of the mainstream media, then WRH is definitely a necessary counterpoint. I will seriously reconsider my use of wikipedia if the WRH entry is deleted. Weigh this decision carefully boys and girls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnemonician (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- KeepWRH uses critical thinking in deciding what materials to put on his website.
Critical thinking - its about freedom, about routing out corruption, about doing what the corporately owned media does not do. WRH is responsible in the way they report things. I can only imagine how corrupt this will make Wikipedia look if they delete WRH because they don't like it or someone has told Wikipedia to censor it. WRH isn't pornography, it is honesty. WRH doesn't foist his opinions, he opens peoples minds. What would Orwell think if he saw that Wikipedia was even considering trying to pretend that WRH does not exist? Shame on you Wikipedia, for even considering such a move. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.181.167 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that in addition to Jeff Rense, Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com, also Dissident Voice has been proposed for deletion at this time. __meco 08:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I have been visiting the site for over a year and its strong criticism of Israel cannot be misconstrued as antisemitism; in fact I consider it foolhardy to do so. WRH is at times unpleasantly rightwing and libertarian but does exhibit quite a bit of stuff which is going wrong in the world. --Dagonweb 15:15, 1 June 2006 (CET)
- Strong Keep As stated many times already, WhatReallyHappened is mainly a news reference site, an encyclopedia itself of VERIFIABLE news stories that, in most cases, you WILL NOT SEE in the mainstream media. Any, and all, claims for deletion of its entry are completely ridiculous, for hundreds of reasons stated above and even more unstated. The only thing its deletion will do is make me SERIOUSLY QUESTION WIKIPEDIA'S CREDIBILITY AND UNBIASED OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING in the future. I'll say it again: how can you delete a website than is composed almost soley of LINKS TO VERIFIABLE NEWS ARTICLES. Give me a break.
Well it seems this has become just another yuppie site. If you dont contribute to the site you dont count. Some people do just use wik to look things up, isnt that the main objective of the site. To GIVE OUT information, NOT hold it in. We already have enough sites that do that. I wonder Who is pushing for this article to be deleted. Calling the policies of Isreal wrong is not anti-semitism. That is tantamount to saying critisising the policies of the CRIPS and BLOODS, is racist towards all blacks. This doesnt not justyify taking it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.119.224 (talk • contribs)
- STRONG KEEP - Clearly notable. Meets and supports all criteria. A mere "conspiracy cruft" reply doesn't hold water for deletion. The site provides valid and verifiable information with unpopular views that some are threatened by. You can argue it's accuracy but hardly justify it's deletion. Robotonic 05:09, 1 June 2006
STRONG KEEP - Rivero has said many times that Zundel, Irving, etc. must be onto something, why else would powerful people be so desperate to silence them? Apparently Rivero is also onto something 66.108.7.46 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep WRH is a fantastic resource of LINKS to numerous information sources, international and alternative news organizations. Sure, some may link to or hold views that are cautionary, however, there is no agenda, nor any sort of push of a belief system. WRH is no more slanted than the Drudge Report. I personally have not read any stories in regards to content that would justify removal of WRH from wikipedia. The whole concept of wikipedia is to let EVERYONE have an editorial voice, it is up to the reader to weigh the information, and then make up their own mind regarding it's merit. Please do not allow a handful of editors to make this decision for millions of potential readers. I value wikipedia and WRH equally, and if forced to make a choice between them, would side with WRH, since they DO NOT discriminate thought content. I feel that some wikipedia editors and/or readers should not have deletion powers, but that a warning or recommendation of impartiality may be more appropriate in this case. WRH falls into the same category, and is surfed just as often by myself as the Drudge Report, David Icke, Rense, yahoo, google and MSN news. Sure, I'm a liberal, but I'll learn. Just let me have ALL available information. I'm a grown man, and it would pain me to lose the OPTION of seeing different points of view. Perhaps we should ban the works of Mark Twain, I hear he has a character named N****r Jim. He sounds like someone we should ban from libraries entirely. (insert sarcastic laugh here). Deletion of content is the same as book burning in my opinion.
Per wikipedia's own guidelines: Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I site the following page which lists awards this site has won. http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm This is very cleat cut proof that WRH meets the Website Notability Criteria 24.130.196.236 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Keith Coogan
- strong keep: Needless attempts at suppression of WRH and similar articles and links is just plain dead wrong, and would only serve to stoke further criticism of the Wiki. Ombudsman 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: First of all, I don't know why the article was tagged for deletion. A little idea of why it was tagged would go a lot further than 'quick, act now' sort of stuff. :-) And also, just because I didn't edit the article doesn't mean I should have less of a say, I think. I may, for example, refer to the article and otherwise be interested in it. So that's another point. All of that said, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. The site does exist. There has to be some form of rationale on why this article is tagged to be deleted... it's getting rather silly, I think. Until someone can demonstrate an idea as to why it was initially tagged for deletion, I will retain my stance of strong keep. It does seem a bit strange from the outside looking in. Keep it, and in future give reasons so we can make more informed decisions - please. --TaranRampersad 06:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- In reviewing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I do not see a basis for this article to be deleted or even to be tagged for deletion. And I am chilled at the flagrant disregard shown in such tags for deletion. This is larger than just one article, it has come to the attention of the general public. By the present process, it seems that there is no penalty for tagging things for deletion without substantiation, and is in itself questionable. With regard to this page, I retain my opinion of keeping it - in fact, I reinforce it. We don't allow arbitrary people with lit matches into libraries, and I take issue with the equivalent happening with the Wikipedia. Sure, we have stuff that needs to be deleted in the Wikipedia, but the appropriate process was not followed for this and deleting it out of turn demonstrates that the process itself is unimportant. That's my read. Open to intelligent discussion. --TaranRampersad 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please actually read the nomination before discussion why this article was tagged. This article was not tagged to the WP:NOT policies but rather the other policies which are stated in the nomination at the top of this discussion. Thank you. --Strothra 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep And, you should clean up the part about anti-Semitism. Rivero's argument is similar to Neturei Karta. If He's guilty of it, then you should also consider deletion of Neturei Karta. Rivero's site is sourced at every turn. All the articles he posts that are of his opinions are highly referenced by multiple sources.
- Strong Keep and Clean Up The What Really Happened article describes a very well-known website with many hits. If there are problems with the article itself they can be fixed -- and I agree that the article needs some work. However, what exactly will deleting the article from Wikipedia accomplish? Just because some people don't like WRH for one reason or another -- whatever the reason -- does not justify VfD's. Although WRH has some original work, it mostly contains citations and links to topics in the mainstream and alternative media that are of interest to a great many people. There are 1000s and 1000s of worse-written articles in Wikipedia, which raises the question, "Why this particular VfD at this time?" Earpol 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a notable website with a large readership, and has been around talking about the clinton scandals long before any of this Bush stuff. ---Archeus 09:13, 31 May 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.
