Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Freedom Watch (2nd nomination)

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

The result wasSpeedily deleted (WP:CSD#G7) by user:MZMcBride. Non- admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Freedom Watch

Religious Freedom Watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted Scientologycruft article about a non-notable hate-slander site designed to insult people who have spoken out against Scientology, some of whom are also Wikipedia editors. Sets a very bad precedent in that retaining the article could encourage anyone to create hate sites, knowing that they'll inevitably generate sources when people respond to the libelous allegations. Fails all tests of notability whether you look at RFW as an organization or a "lone nut" personal web page. wikipediatrix 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Misleading and low notability. 70.21.254.188 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per previous noms. Possibly salt? Artw 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The one actual reference to the attack site is an adverse one from a reporter who has much to say and sums it up with "At best, RFW is misrepresenting my piece. At worst, they are outright lying about it." There is no source to support the pro-RFW POV used throughout the article. The only way the site would be notable is if someone took the owner to court. AndroidCat 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Immediately before the page was nominated for deletion, more than half of its content was removed. The article is now a shadow of its former self. Foobaz·o< 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. The John DeSio section took up a full third of the article, which is undue weight; and the rest were either unsourced claims or off-topic prattle, as discussed on the talk page. wikipediatrix 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's only undue weight if there are any other sourced POVs that were different. There weren't. AndroidCat 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was giving benefit of the doubt that the primary source, RFW itself, counted as one. I do believe a fair common-sense argument can be made that one man's critical opinion shouldn't dominate so much of an article, even though I agree wholeheartedly with Mr.DeSio. wikipediatrix 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Low notability "incite hate and attack CofS enemies" site.--Fahrenheit451 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A libel site with no originality and nothing useful to say; unworthy of notice by Wikipedia. --Touretzky 00:30, 23 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.