Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was speedy keep. --- RockMFR 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Chanology

Project Chanology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This page deals with a topic that is non-notable. The existence of this page encourage organized acts of Internet vandalism, and provides a forum and rallying point for Wikipedia trolls Weierstrass (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Furthermore, this page deals with topics that are too recent to be able to be treated without bias in an encyclopedia manner, see WP:RECENT Weierstrass (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. -- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. The previous AfD result was "Keep per WP:SNOW." And yet even if anyone had doubted the result of the previous AfD, we now have over 100 WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources which discuss these events in depth. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Close - this is an abusive nomination as only two weeks ago the first AfD closed per WP:SNOW. An admin needs to close this abusive nomination down. --David Shankbone 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Just at AfD, notable, sourced, etc. . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. More notable, and more sourced than the last time it passed AfD. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep On second thoughts, I agree with Cirt about this one. Didn't mean to be abusive though :) Weierstrass (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. That's a whole lotta great sources for something that "should be deleted." Casull (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is clearly notable and the number of edits testifies to that. Michael.passman (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2008 (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.