Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Media Group

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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebel Media Group

Seems to fail WP:WEB substantially. Delete Mak (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't delete - unsubstiated non-compliance claim by Mak --Andrewwinkler 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Note - Andrew Winkler is apparently the editor/publisher of The Rebel Media Group Kevin 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What do you mean? It does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Would you like me to spell it out more specifically? I can't find any instances of it being covered in any outside, unaffiliated media. It doesn't seem to have won any awards. It is not distributed by a well known media group. The onus is on the creator of the article to provide evidence of such things. Substantiate your own claims. Mak (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply not covered by outside, unaffiliated media? how long did that take you to work out? It's obviously wrong. And how is a web site supposed to be distributed by a 'well known media group' (you probably mean kosher)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn forum, about six months old, Alexa rank 587,498. Fan1967 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply nn site? Typical Zio smear. Being critical of Israel, Zionism and the Holocaust industry doesn't make you a nn. Or would you call Gideo Levy, Finkelstein or Chomsky nn, too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewwinkler (talk
    • Comment: the abbreviation "nn" means "non-notable" or "not notable", in case that was unclear. -- Kjkolb 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:WEB asks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". I see no evidence of that. Kevin 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply I can provide that, no worries... Anything else required?
Yes. Rewrite it so that it doesn't sound like advertising. And please sign your comments. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply Zio smear—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Reply It must be a very sad, sad world you live in, where everyone who disagrees with you is part of the "Zio" conspiracy. Fan1967 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply unsubstantiated—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Comment. You keep saying that. If you read WP:WEB you will notice that it is sufficient for an AfD voter to assert that it fails WP:WEB. It is up to the editors of the article in question to disprove the claim that it fails WP:WEB by proving (i.e. supplying, in the article) suitable references of the type described in WP:WEB. To date, you have not done this. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply So what you are saying is that the accused has to prove his innocence?! You got to be kidding.--Andrewwinkler 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia does not follow the US Constitution, because it's not actually the US Government. You do not have the right to bear arms on Wikipedia. And you are not on trial. As the person who wants to keep the article, and presumably the one who knows the most about the subject since you are the founder and author of the article, you need to find verifiable and notable sources for your article. A Google search is not a reliable source. If, however, this website has been mentioned somewhere like the New York Times, the Guardian, or even something like Salon.com, that would be good. I doubt it has been. Mak (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply This is not about the US Constitution. Requiring the accuser to prove the guilt rather than the accused having to prove his innocence in a universal legal principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)
Actually, the accuser having to prove guilt is not a universal legal principle, but either way it's irrevelant to the point. You need to (a) stop taking this so personally and (b) stop thinking about this within the guilt/innocence paradigm and instead read what people are saying (oh, and sign your comments! Just add four tildes at the end). There are two questions being discussed...
The question being discussed is not about whether the RMG exists or not, or whether it is a worthwhile company or not, or whether the people there are decent or not, but whether RMG is notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Among the criteria for notability is whether there is at least one but preferable several non-trivial references to the subject in question in verifiable sources that are independent of the group in question. For example, if an independent magazine had written an article about something interesting the group was doing, that would most likely meet the criteria for notability. If it was an advertorial then it probably wouldn't. Provide some references like this, and the notability question will be resolved.
The second question being discussed is the style of the article. At the moment, it reads like a marketing piece, not an encyclopaedia article. WP is not for marketing and publicity, even of notable entities. If Bono, George W Bush and Fidel Castro formed a punk band, it would be worthy of an entry - but a WP article advertising their current world tour would be deleted. Paddles 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like they are trying to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. This is too new and small to be considered notable. --Dakart 08:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't really care whether it's a tool of Time-Warner or the Zionist or whatever, but there's no evidence that anyone is actually reading this. No coverage in outside news sources plus an awful Alexa rating adds up to nn site. (By the way, it would totally make my day if the original author called me a tool of the Zionists or something; I haven't been accused of serving my Jewish conspiratorial masters enough lately. ¬_¬) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A secret cabal of bankers and industrialists are ordering me to vote Delete on grounds of complete un-notability. But they can't make me like it. Vizjim 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, I disagree on the notability thing: rebel media group is listed on the first two positions of page one on google search and on 1st and 9th position on yahoo serach. [Rebel Media Group] is mentioned on [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], all in the first 10 pages on Google. I didnt' have any problems finding mentioning on other search engines either. I wonder how all the previous posters came up with this non-notability finding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.86.237 (talk • contribs) .
Comment. In case you are a different person to the above, please sign your comments. It's very easy - just add four tilde characters at the end of your comment. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's an open-and-shut case, with no right of appeal. --Agamemnon2 10:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Being found by Google does not make you notable. TheMadBaron 12:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per secret cabal of Zionist bankers, hairdressers, and interior decorators. AnonEMouse 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising for an nn site = byebye. Also, I greatly enjoy AnonEMouse's deletion vote. -- Kicking222 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. Paddles 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Incredibly non notable. As for the links provided above, one is for a webforum, one is an article written by the founder of the site about the site, one is a links page, and the other two are passing mentions on non notable websites. IrishGuy 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete typical attack site ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just like ziopedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and AnonEMouse. Grandmasterka 02:49, 18 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.