Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Stew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Stew

  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}}
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

I have refactored some of the comments from this page to the talk page to reduce the length that people have to browse through. This is not a statement that those comments are somehow not as important as what's here. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing but shameless self-promotion of author's website. Delete. Burmaduck 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, smells of self-promotion. Anville 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has been up for about three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating it for deletion (Burmaduck). If you look in the page history, you'll notice that the user tried to deface it. As that hasn't worked, now he's trying to get the page deleted this way. Burmaduck is a user who was banned from PS for repeatedly spamming the board.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.107.247 (talk • contribs)
Comment Page history shows no edits by Burmaduck before the AfD. Fan1967 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment As others rightly state, I didn't attempt to deface the article. Burmaduck
Comment My only alterations to the PS article have been additions of AfD, RFM and reverting vandalism. Your link shows that after my addition of AfD, someone else began editing the article. Burmaduck 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As stated by another user the page has been displayed on Wikipedia for three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating for deletion. (Burmaduck). Burmaduck, if the alias serves as the same as his handle on the site, is a person renowned for spamming the Lonely Planet website which he has continued to do for the last five years due to a failed legal action for plagiarism and once banned from the Political Stew site for grotesque racist abuse of certain members now tries to spam Political Stew. If this is the same Burmaduck he personally threatened one of the site administrators of Political stew who subsequently filed a complaint with the police. The motivation behind Burmaduck's request for deletion is more likely to be out of spite and has probably little or nothing to do with any contravention of the WED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep.. The claims by Burmaduck are biased as he was banned from the forum and was involved in a near-legal fight with the current administration of the forum. I think this site is in line with paragraph 1 of the WP:WEB guidelines, as it is a collection of published material of whom the majority cites its sources in well known international broadcasting agencies such as Reuters and the BBC. If it is not, then WP:WEB is against the nature of Wikipedia, as it only offers the chance to a handful of websites to be included in the directory. dr. manos 4/24/06 01:18GMT+2.
  • Keep. Site is frequently the subject of discussion of a major entry in Wikipedia, Lonely Planet. The Lonely Planet website administrators/programmers would confirm this is reference is required.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)
Comment It's not that frequently discussed. It's more like users on LP mention it in passing occassionally. Burmaduck 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Question What links with Lonely Planet? I'm having trouble finding any. Fan1967 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete move along nothing to see here. -- Hirudo 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Issue of self-promotion seems odd as author never advertised the link on the Political Stew forums - was found independently by a user - nor anywhere else. Site is a non-profit and Political Stew is an obscure combination of words to be considered promotion. Google search for Political Stew does not show wiki link in top results. Given historic links with Lonely Planet and frequent discussion of it on their forums including contributions from their site admins, suggestion is keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.208.99 (talk • contribs)

Delete This entry on wikipedia is just an attempt at self aggrandizing on a scale that is up there with Ross Perot's. "the biggest single act of masturbation in the history of the world".

Keep. (Comment from author of original entry). I'm happy to remove entry on the basis of contravention of the WEP, although I don't believe that it necessarily does. There are long-standing links to one of your major entries in Lonely Planet, as well as mentions from Boots 'n' All. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Delete Lies and more lies. The above poster has on numerous occassions told us of his intentions to tie the site in with a national newspaper or corporate sponsors. He has every intention of turning this website in to a commercial undertaking and is shamelessly using this entry on wikipedia as a way to convince interested parties to invest money. This site is a non entity and clearly does not benefit a mention on this site.--Bashtard 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, the forum has a fairly decent number of members, but I just don't seen any evidence at all that this forum meets the WP:WEB criteria. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can post some evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Also, the nominator needs to WP:CHILL.--Isotope23 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I feel the page does meet the WEB criteria, there is little point continuing with a page that will be continually defaced. Please delete. (Original author comment)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs) :Comment Bashtard why are you being so childish? Burmaduck 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: A quick lookover of the WP:Web criteria and the site in question shows that Political Stew does indeed meet said criteria. Burmaduck's intense crusade seems hardly founded in concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia and appears to be little more than a petty personal grudge. His comments should be treated with more than just a grain of salt. However, caution should be taken lest he spam Wikipedia with gay porn links as he has done with both the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree and the Political Stew - this fact can be verified by moderators of both sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.45.215.130 (talk • contribs) .
    • Another claim that the site meets WP:WEB with no supporting argument of how it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is really a non-issue but someone apparantly with an axe to grind against the site felt like making it one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.25.23 (talk • contribs)
Comment If this is as simple as a non-issue, please explain how the article meets the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We are a bunch of cheap and workshy lawyers who will be prepared to take up the case of why Wikipedia should put this article up. If Wiki still do not see reason then we will contact the London Met police and take out a criminal prosecution. Bet you are scared now--David Phillips and partners 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to all at Wikipedia but this page has unfortunately been hijacked for a legitimate protest at the actions of the owners and administrators of the Political stew site. Banning people without reason and failing to give a justifiable reason is just not on. We are not going to just go away so sadly all other forays on to external sites by PS will be subject to this kind of attention. Bashtard


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.