Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth.info

  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}}

This page has already been speedy deleted twice; however, I'm listing it here because, since it is a site critical of Wikipedia, we should be seen to be transparent in our processes, rather than running the risk of being seen as deleting criticism for it's own sake. Because of the reason for listing here, I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted. By the way: User:Hturtikiw's name is "wikitruth" spelled backwards, and this is their only edit. -- The Anome 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Only one Guardian article seems to mention it - nothing else. Also smells badly of self-advertising. -- Tangotango 12:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, for the time being at least. The site deserves a sentence or two at that page, and an external link, as criticism by admins should be covered on that page. I notice that even external link adding has been reverted. Now its ok to do that for Wikipedia Review which has the occasional really unpleasant "commentary", but the criticism on Wikitruth is legitimate (even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it). The redirect strikes the appropriate balance between notability and transparency. Pcb21 Pete 13:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to make any sense. There is valid criticism of Wikipedia all over the place - nobody is getting censored. Put up the facts and the article stays. Put up blather, and its off to perdition with it. george 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pcb21. The article contains no actual information beyond the link itself. Gwernol 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lest our zeal to be fair and unbiased in the AfD process cause us to retain an article on a web community that has maybe 5 active users, from what I could tell. If/when it reaches notability it would deserve a mention on Criticism of Wikipedia. GT 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think m/r is best. Kotepho 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep With multiple media mentions (even if two were written by AO) I think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Also, Jimbo thought it was important enough to make an unsubstantiated claim that it is a hoax. Kotepho 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepMerge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Kotepho is quite right, it doesn't yet meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) with one mention, but it will likely gain more attention... perhaps eventually it will deserve its own article... but not yet. With the additional mentions on Slashdot, Digg, and many many more sites in the past couple days, I'd say this is newsworthy enough to get included (that doesnt remove the future possibility of another AFD however)  ALKIVAR™ 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepRedirect as suggested for the reasons described by Alkivar. --Myles Long 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete merge what's useful into Criticism of Wikipedia and delete the rest. Nortelrye 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge/delete is unacceptable for copyright preservation reasons. Merge/redirect is ok though. Pcb21 Pete 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If the consensus were to be merge, delete it could be done within copyright by doing a history merge and deleting the excess redirect. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Urgh I hate those history merges. Another route might be to copy the authorship information to the talk page. Then merge/delete is permissible I suppose. Still prefer redirecting though.
  • Merge (and redirect) to Criticism of Wikipedia. Or just delete it failing that. Geez, whose vanity article got deleted this time to make us deserve this? They don't seem to tell that on their "FWK" =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note the following is a comment about your comment and the state of Wikipedia in general. It is not about whether we should have an article on wikitruth.
    • At a minimum there is one admin contributing to that site (they are able to retrieve deleted content). To pass that site off as if it is merely some banned troll having a hissy fit makes us look bad. Rather than shutting our eyes and saying "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU", we should at least consider what they are saying. Maybe they have some sensible ideas for improving Wikipedia and we all want that! Pcb21 Pete 12:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course I'm not trying to pass it off as a site probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. I'm trying to pass it off as a site - one that has a Wikipedia admin on board, mind you - that was probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. =) Which is why I'm saying merge, not delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With a single cited newspaper article, and no other evidence appearing to meet the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, combined with an Alexa rating of 366,000, 49 unique googles for wikitruth and 128 unique googles for "wiki truth", I would consider deletion. An alternate option mentioned above (which I would support) would be to somehow merge the 'gist' of the information and an external link into the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article. -- Saberwyn 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it is going to be relevant or not, but all votes "above the line" were made before the slashdotting. All votes "below the line" were made afterwards. The closing admin should use his/her judgement as to whether this is important.

  • Delete Why are we even discussing this? This amounts to spam, nothing more. --Gmaxwell 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect for now, without prejudice to later recreation if this gets more media attention. Even though as a God-King of Wikipedia (according to wikitruth.info at least), I am certainly not required to give any reasons here, I feel I need to point out that it has now been featured on Slashdot. Sandstein 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - while I generally object to articles about Wikipedia (other than the article Wikipedia]) (hence the weak), this was Slashdotted (hence the keep). So there's kind of a notability claim here. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure. Slashdot is merely a reporter of other people's news. That slashdot chose to report on Orlowski's article is an interesting commentary on Slashdot's infamously bad editorial policies. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you think covering the article was a bad editorial decision? Because it had something bad to say about wikipedia? Why can't we try to keep things like this unbiased? Rm999 09:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    No, because I don't trust Orlowski's judgement. The man is a hack. Beyond that, if you examine the site's content you'll find not legitimate critique and commentary, but rather gossip, innuendo, and defamation. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/Redirect - Wikitruth just made Slashdot. It positively meets notability now. --Avillia 19:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect - I'd say it is worth keeping around in some form due to it's mention on Slashdot and to undercut griping about censorship and lack of transparency. Just IMHO. Phil 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utterly non-notable. One post to Slashdot does not notability create. By those standards, my own personal site would be notable, as would tens of thousands of other sites. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What's with the "please note that this is not a vote" infobox? This is AfD, we ARE casting votes, and numbers DO count to a certain extent.--inksT 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - now on slashdot.org as well as newsite. hence notable according to standards 1.a.ii as well as 3 found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28websites%29 . Towsonu2003 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Err, (3) on Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is not satisfied - for that to be satisfied, Slashdot would have to actually distribute the content, not just have an article. The only thing I can find that could be classified as (1.a.ii) is an exclusion for trivial media coverage. Are we looking at the same guideline? --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Interestingly, it now appeared on digg.com as well. I don't know how much notable it can get... Would you prefer CNN or something ;) Towsonu2003 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Being slashdotted doesn't inherently make something notable. Wikitruth still fails all of the standard Wikipedia:Notability (websites) metrics that we use, and a single mention on Slashdot isn't going to change those by much. Cyde Weys 21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia for the time being. While the article and attention are not yet substantial enough to warrant an entire article, there is certainly no reason to remove any reference to wikitruth. Isn't Wikipedia founded on the fact that everyone has something legitimate to contribute, something real to say? Even if that means writing about someone else who criticizes it? Rexmorgan 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge at minimum). There is no point whatsoever in having a separate article on every single group of disgruntled Wikipedians who go off in a huff and decide to Stick It To Us by making a website that criticises some aspect of WP. We can always write an article on this website if it ever becomes significant enough to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia, but having been mentioned in one media article and discussed on a few geek websites is not enough for it to qualify. — Haeleth Talk 21:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia. Site was mentioned on Slashdot, somewhat notable, it should have a mention. Spoom - Talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for pure P.R. reasons. The existence of WikiTruth.Info has now been publicized amidst a rather wide exposure of the public. Purposefully deleting an article on it — a site whose very existence is to rescue deleted articles — is horribly bad P.R. And it's good to say that perhaps the site is impervious to P.R., except we've already learned through myriad other actions that it isn't. — WCityMike (T | C) 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A single slashdot article and a Guardian article does not constitute wide exposure per Wikipedia:Notability (websites), in my opinion. PR is not a valid reason to keep an article. --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Surely I don't need to tell you how many readers read every single Slashdot article. And to rephrase the P.R. aspect of what I was saying, frankly, it just looks bad -- looks horrible, in fact -- for Wikipedia to be routinely deleting articles that are critical of it. And let's not pretend that Criticism of Wikipedia is anything but milquetoast. — WCityMike (T | C) 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony of trying to delete this article because it doesn't meet the arbitrary metrics of an acronym is rich but there are too many articles about things that are only of any real interest to Wikipedians who pay a lot of attention to meta-issues. Delete or worst case merge somewhere suitable. Grace Note 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Articles about Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism should not get special treatment. --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lews Therin (talk • contribs) [1]
  • Keep. Like it or not, this site has become notable -- in part because of efforts to suppress the views it describes (or, perhaps, the frustrations it vents). I sincerely hope that this site becomes irrelevant through the addressing of the concerns it raises. However, as it stands today, this site has been cited by recent media coverage and is certainly thereby notable. --71.146.46.82 01:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. The site does not even load. SYSS Mouse 02:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's likely due to a little thing called the Slashdot effect. I'm just sayin'. --Myles Long 02:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It does now. -- noosphere 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia. Pete.Hurd 02:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Fails any notability test that can be thrown at it. Mention of Slashdot is redundant because all Slashdot did was refer to Orlowski's piece, which was itself an Op-ed. One editorial by a noted hack does not establish notability. Do not merge. Do not perpetuate. Do not enable the spammers. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because they're assho— …er, because anyone can throw up a MediaWiki site and that doesn't make them notable, even if they're mentioned by Andrew Orlowski, who really is a prick. --phh 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak-Keep I do think it is ( currently ) noteable enough to keep. --2mcmGespräch 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A plug on Slashdot is not a free ticket to notability. - Corbin ? 1 ? p s ? ? Rock on, dude! 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. During the past few days, the site has in fact become notable. But more importantly, it will surely be noted even more in the near future, making this article relevant - at least for the time being. Will anybody remember the site in 10 years? We really don't know yet. Kanaman 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that the site has been Slashdotted it is notable.SCVirus 04:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the userlist. Only 10 people. - Corbin ? 1 ? p s ? ? Rock on, dude! 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • yeah but I think they said on wikipedia review (or was it /.?) that several "admins" email in their contributions... I see no reason to call the "12" number false (we've got 800+ admins) it would be trivial to find 12 who are angry with wikipedia...  ALKIVAR™ 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep that Criticism of Wikipedia page locked down for good. Dissent only exists if we acknowledge it, so let's take the luxury to wait for some intelligent dissent before bothering to deal with it. 24.23.137.188 06:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kanaman. Grodin Tierce 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Censorship has it's limits. Prohibit Criticism? where are we? China? North Korea? or did the kommunist east germany where I come from did just reincarnate here? --Roy-SAC 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Censorship of a page about censorship on wikipedia would just be bad. I think we need to acknowledge this site; with over one million articles on wikipedia, I am positive there are many articles that are less notable than this that don't have several dozen votes whether or not to delete it. I suspect the reason why there is so much resistance to this site is because it is critical of wikipedia. Rm999 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you have it backwards, the reason there's dozens of votes on whether to delete it is because it's meta-wikipedian. If you look at the site by normal Wikipedia:Notability (websites) standards ("contents have been the subject of multiple nontrivial published works", etc), it utterly fails and would have been deleted with zero fuss. Phr 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Censorship is BS. We can change the page to be less caustic-sure. But deleting a page altogether is nonsense.Chickenofbristol 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't vote either way on this without an actual article to base my vote on, per:
22:01, 16 April 2006 Jayjg deleted "Wikitruth.info" (created by banned user wik)

--Goobergunch|? 09:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Front page on digg, slashdot, and a guardian article. Also Jimbo's deletion of Brian Peppers is ridiculous. (Bjorn Tipling 09:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
    All respect, we aren't voting on Brian Peppers. Note that both digg and slashdot merely refer back to the Guardian article. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Keep - The Slashdot mention alone would make this worthy. As an aside, it saddens me greatly to see how political the deletion process has become over the past several years. I predict that some admin will take this discussion as license to delete, although there is clearly NOT consensus that such action be taken. - O^O
    Reinforcing what I wrote above. There is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus to delete emerging from this discussion. Deletion of this article makes a mockery of the entire AFD process. O^O
  • Comment This thing was deleted (as noted above); Someone recreated the article under Wikitruth and created a redirect from Wikitruth.info. I added the AfD template there and pointed it here, because this deletion discussion was not closed yet. Hope this is OK. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep or at least merge to criticism of Wikipedia. Like what Rm999 said! You can't delete something just because it may portray us badly. Also it's been slashdotted, so it's notable criticism of Wikipedia and needs to be treated impartially. I'd love to see this article grow and flourish as the WikiTruth movement does whatever it does, and Wikipedia reacts whichever way it reacts.--Sonjaaa 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    You're right. If you look at the delete votes that's not what's happening. It's up for deletion because it's a non-notable non-wiki barely editing by anyone, and whose primary purpose at this time is gossip-mongering. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. If this is kept, we have to trash every website notability guideline we have. They will all have to be scrapped, because this site violates all of them. It has been mentioned by one columnist in one online edition of one newspaper. One. That article was then mentioned on a popular technology blog (which, frankly, is what Slashdot is). If that's all it takes to establish notability these days then the floodgates will open. Never mind that the claims made about the website have not been verified. Never mind that the website is a forum for gossip and innuendo (like many websites). Never mind that, as this debate goes on, the website is down because of a slashdotting. Not that such an act establishes notability–Slashdot links all kinds of things from the main page. If Wikitruth actually grows into a serious critique of Wikipedia, it may deserve an article. But we're not a crystal ball. Anyone can setup a wiki with eight to ten users and post salacious gossip. I'm in a position to do so myself. Morevoer, given the repeated allegations of sloppy journalism which have followed Andrew Orlowski for years, I could probably drop him a line and get him to mention it in his next rant against Wikipedia. Would my website deserve an article? Apparently, according to the votes above. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    "A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable."
    Doesn't seem like that one would have to be deleted. Rm999 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mackensen's extremely well-reasoned explanation of why this site it not notable enough for an article. Johntex\talk 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect The best policy for criticism is to enable it to be (at least somewhat) visible. Being WP related, with ostensibly an admin on board, /., and other sources show some interest/notabilty. SchrödingersRoot | talk 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Changing my vote to keep. The article is now much improved versus how it was when I first voted. Definitely worth its own article now, per many of the other great comments here. -- noosphere 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Merge/Redirect There's really not enough material here to merit it's own article. Merging and redirecting it to Criticism of Wikipedia is the only sane thing to do at this point. Once there's significantly more information on it I'd see no problem in allowing it to have its own article per WCityMike and many other Keep/Merge comments on here. -- noosphere 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: And how would half of the people who have visited this discussion page know that? In the past 48 hours three admins have seen fit to delete this article outside of process. No wonder sites like these exist. Silensor 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Diggidik Peng.
Comment How would they know what? And how does the rest of what you said relate to what I just said? -- noosphere 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I may not always like what Andrew Orlowski has written about, e.g., my employer, but he is often worth reading, so this is now notable, and censorship would look bad. Let a hundred flowers bloom. FlashSheridan 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - I notice a lot of people are claiming this site breaks notability rules. Please cite some, I think that would help your case a lot. Some people claim this site has only been covered on slashdot (which insinuates it has not gotten other media coverage). How is this a criteria for deletion? We have an article for countless websites, most of which never got mainstream media coverage. Should we start purging half of wikipedia? Other people have attacked the content of the website. Should we delete the Hitler article because he was a bad man? No, that's insane - just because some people perceive this website to be bad does not mean it can't be covered on wikipedia. Rm999 17:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Nice strawman. The idea that you would bring Hitler up in such a matter is repugnant. Language involving "purging" and whatnot–is such language really merited? Do you honestly think that a website with eight editors featuring the so-calld "featured atrocity" (of Wikipedia) can be equated to mass-murder? I tremble at the thought that you might be serious. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    You're trying to turn this into a flamewar, keep it professional and keep this to discussion. If you don't think I made a valid point don't reply, otherwise reply with something on topic. Rm999 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect for the time being, until the site gains some more notability. However many sites link to the guardian article, it's still just one article. -- Vary | Talk 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The website is attracting attention beyond what would usually make a site notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rls 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shutting down dissent fuels rumours that something is very wrong. Allow dissent, and judge it on its merits. For great justice. 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Shutting down dissent? I think you're confusing the website and the article about the website. How is dissent being shutdown? This debate has no control over the actual site. Indeed, we're harming it by linking to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Although wikitruth may not be significant enough (yet?) to warrant an article of its own, it is fundamentally important for WP to clearly and fairly acknowledge criticisms of itself. To completely delete this article would amount to an inconcionable act of censureship IMO, and although wikitruth.info may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites), dont forget Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Lets try to reach the best compromise we can by redirecting and making a good article at Criticism of Wikipedia.-Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • He hadnt posted before I started writing, but User:For great justice. (right above my vote) has just put it better than I can possibly hope to. I second his statement 100%. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia. Not nearly notable enough for an article of its own; 279,814 Alexa ranking. --Rory096(block) 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. This is a criticism of Wikipedia, valid or not, and the site has become rather notable. --Knucmo2 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks to me like the site is fairly likely to meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) pretty soon; it's getting considerable attention. I'm thinking of switching my vote from "delete now, maybe redirect later" to "redirect now, maybe restart article later". Phr 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, it's getting attention all right, but mainly from Wikipedia folk. Once the media scrum subsides though, what we've got is a page full of personal attacks on various people, the contents of three deleted articles, and one shoddy op-ed from a discredited journalist (apparently the Guardian is becoming perturbed at the "fan mail" it's been getting over the piece). Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this site fails all the notability policies, and this afd is becoming polluted with people coming from slashdot. I guess it's part of the strategia to destroy consensus and therefore having the article kept. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, does not meet any notability standard ?the Epopt 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having now been in the news, wikitruth.info meets certain standards of notability. People are going to be curious about what wikipedia has to say about the site; I, for one, came here for information about the site that may not have been evident to me at first glance. The fact that it's stirring up so much controversy, in my mind, makes it notable and worthy of inclusion. Captainktainer 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    I find it interesting that you mention webcest on your user page, because that's exactly what's going on here. WikiTruth has no notability outside Wikipedia. It's present notability is the result of one man who, for reasons best known to himself, hates Wikipedia (see Andrew Orlowski). An opinion piece is not the same thing as an actual story. For one thing, actual stories are expected to solicit opinions from both camps, and Mr. Orlowski didn't see fit to contact anyone formally associated with Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Too bad. Wikipedia is not in a position to judge good journalism from bad, at least not when deciding whether to include articles. Like it or not, this group is now notable. Tlogmer 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unfortunately it is probably too late to delete this - it has become rather notorious being linked from slashdot and is quite varafiable from the guardian as far as I can see :\. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - mention in Guardian and Slashdot make it notable. -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site has become notable through wide exposure -- maybe it doesn't deserve to be notable, but it is, like it or not, regardless of the number of members or quality of content (some of which is pure personal insult, some of which is nuanced criticism). Also: it would reflect terribly on wikipedia if we deleted an article about a group criticising article deletions. If this article gets deleted I'll just shake my head at the endearing lack of PR judgement displayed, but most of the world, not versed in the sometimes confusing notability guidelines (and in this case I think they say "keep" but that's another issue) will see this as a display of Orwellian groupthink and mindless cencorship of any criticism. The more negative the public's view of wikipedia, the fewer people will work to improve it, and the less stigmatised vandals will be. Tlogmer 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- it is dishonest and unethical to make the claim that because these votes came after a "slashdotting" they are any more valid or invalid. This group is now as notable as many other groups covered on wikipedia. To delete this group would be inconsistent and it would suggest that Wikipedia values the gods that Naruto (an anime character) worships over actual internet communities who obviously support wikipedia but have much to say about how it is run. Wikipedia allows troll groups on (GNAA) so why can't it have this group. Essentially Slashdot, Metafilter, Wikipedia and Digg have made this group notable. --ReptileLawyer 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They protest against censorship in WP but their own wiki can't be edited, that's stupid. But still, the site it's valuable for wikipedia itself. I believe Wikipedia is very democratic and it's a great tool for democracy. Even in democracy censorship is sometimes needed. But censorship on censorship? That's too much. And yeh, before you accuse me of sockpuppetry check my username in the spanish wikipedia where I contribute more often.--Rataube 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in the news now. Guaka 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep by virtue of being in the news in the Guardian and Slashdot (which may only report other people's news, but something on Slashdot is almost guaranteed to become well-known). As mentioned above, it looks bad for Wikipedia to delete this article as well, and sometimes you have to IAR. -- Mithent 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I made it to the bottom!! passes out. TeKE 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The validity of the opinions presented are irrelevant. The website has increased significantly in notoriety to the point where it's clearly worthy of at least a mention on the criticisms page, but it makes sense for Wikipedia to err on the side of generosity when concerning articles related to criticism of Wikipedia itself. Besides, deletion would only increase the website's notoriety even further. --ErWenn 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Truth is not a crime. Alyeska 03:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We are not prosecuting anyone. There is no "truth," just majority opinions. - Corbin ? 1 ? p s ? ? Rock on, dude! 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deleting this article would defeat the original purpose of Wikipedia. --IceCube 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not that'll matter, you know who will just delete it under some BS excuse.--KrossTalk 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jimbo has commented on this trying to discredit wikitruth. The story is in a recognized newspaper. Ergo it is notable.--God O War 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Story here [2]
  • Delete still mostly nn IMO. --Fire Star 04:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site has certainly got enough press to be notable; keeping the article doesn't depend on endorsing its specific opinions or registration procedures, as some voters seem to think. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikitruth has appeared in several somewhat major media sources. It makes sense to keep it in my opinion. There is also the stated PR benefits of keeping the article over removing it (and then having the article become further content on wikitruth.info). Matthew king 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I'm skeptical of notability, but probably best, for appearances' sake, to err on the side of caution. Although it says a lot about credibility when you have to explicitly put the word 'truth' in the name. Besides Wikipedia is not paper, and we managed to include articles on other lunatic fringe conspiracy theory websites without civilization collapsing around us. Peter Grey 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: two-digit results in Google isn't notability, but Slashdot and MetaFilter threads say otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per arguments above, without prejudice against later expansion and re-creation. -- Visviva 06:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge, a bit too many self references perhaps. bbx 06:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is small, but has received significant press recently. The site itself is, of course biased, and possibly in a way that could threaten or offend regular WP contributors. That's not relevant, though. It's a notable site now, due to its media coverage, can be treated in an NPOV fashion here on WP, despite its own very biased view of the world. --Ds13 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been widely in the news + censorship is always a bad idea. Rammer
  • Keep. Might be less notable but would give the incorrect impression that Wikipedia is censored. The allegations and replies should both be written at the Wikitruth-page. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You know this debate is actually pointless, Jimbo will just delete the article anyways if he feels like it. (Bjorn Tipling 08:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Comment Jimbo can't directly delete this article against Wikipedia consensus without proving wikitruth's criticisms of him are valid, providing them with more ammunition, and generating even more negative publicity. -- noosphere 04:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - no article should ever be deleted from H.T. --Boborok 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 08:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. —Psychonaut 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the site just became notable --Dijxtra 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This site contains direct criticism of Wikipedia, and is thus highly relevant. If this article were to be deleted, it would indeed give the impression that Wikipedia would be censored, because that impression would be correct. Also, the suggestion that all votes made after the first couple of days should be discarded because of Slashdot is obviously misguided. That would mean the poll would favour the creator and his or her friends. This article must be kept, or it will be recreated a million times. Ronin 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep maybe there are much more famous sites, but keeping won't hurt anyway. Paulatz 12:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or in the alternative, redirect to the criticism article. The "five active users" figure seems about right. It also takes about five minutes to make an attack site. Not everything linked from Slashdot is notable. This isn't, yet. NTK 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have to speak up, or we are going to make a grave mistake. It seems to me as if a lot of the votes are justifying themselves by saying,
"If we delete it, we really are censoring them!"
The problem with this argument is that it assumes we are already allowing that article to express a point of view. Remember, we are neutral when it comes to prose in the main namespace. That article, if well-written, will not express any point of view whatsoever. If the site's authors want a spot on Wikipedia itself where they can bitch and moan about our faults, they can do it in the Talk:, User:, User talk:, or Wikipedia talk: namespaces.
"The site's notable 'cause it's been linked from Slashdot and the Register!"
The site itself is a non-notable website. Being linked to from Slashdot is not notable. Being linked to from the Register is not notable. The Wikipedia Review, a similarly sized site with similar credentials, has no article, and this site shouldn't have one either.
"It's bad PR for us to delete it!"
Anybody who doesn't like us will bitch and moan about us no matter what. They will complain about deletions, admins, images, and pretty much anything else they want. This article is not a pivotal stronghold in the war against bad PR. More importantly, we aren't even attempting at the moment to create good PR. Wikipedia doesn't make press releases, right? The only one of us who's gone onto traditional media to defend us is Jimbo, who will defend the encyclopedia no matter what from here 'til the end of time. Let him, the man who actually speaks up, be the one to defend the project. As for this article, let's not throw away our policies just to cater to one small minority group. - Corbin ? 1 ? p s ? ? Rock on, dude! 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Valid points. But, unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world. PR matters. Does it matter enough to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? That's what we're figuring out. Peter Grey 15:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: WP's guideline on the notability of a website should be consulted, and the article in question would appear to satisfy the necessary criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Check; there are at least two, three, maybe more of these non-trivial published works already. Consider that if the article is deleted now, there will likely be more independent non-trivial published works on the topic. --Ds13 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable enough now. Appeared in the Guardian and on slashdot. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Of course! Are you that afraid? - Perspective 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, for the time being. As mentioned by other users I think the site deserves a sentence or two at that page, and an external link, as criticism by admins should be transparent and open. Although I might not agree with all of the points or the style in which they are made the criticism on Wikitruth appears to be legitimate and hence should not be banned. By redirecting and adding a paragraph and link to the site I believe wiki will strike the appropriate balance between notability and transparency. As the user above mentioned it has now been ./ed as well. - Edwin Smith 17:00, 18 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep -Fellow wikipedians, there is a paradox in the making here. A real trap, so to speak. If we delete this article we make the site more noteworthy, lend them more credibility, and make them more deserving of an article. If we delete the article now, we'll simply have to re-create it later, as "suppressed" and "censored" things always generate more interest than they would if freely available. Even something like merging or redirecting will simply give them ammunition. If the wikitruth site dies down and ceases to update, then we can consider deleting it. For now, it would be heavy-handed and counter-productive to get rid of it.

--Irongaard 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and just because something has been given wide media attention won't make it any more valid. It is a website with 10 members, all of whom are not verified and have no grounds for their supposed Wikipedia connections. Alternatively Redirect/Merge so the traffic is correctly routed to Criticism of Wikipedia. At the end of the day this article would be given this treatment if it wern't slashdotted, and acting differently because of this (which as far as I can see doesn't strengthen its case), purely shows inconsistancy and 'cherry-picking' which the site criticises that we do. Ian13/talk 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that in the future it might not be relavant, but at the moment it is. Johnsorc 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep --Mentions on the Grauniad, Slashdot and visitability makes Wikitruth by all means "notable" enough to warrant its own article. If it wasn't a website so critical towards Wikipedia, would we even be having this conversation? Porfyrios 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect Now the website is well-known, and criticism favors improvement :).--pankkake 17:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Being on Slashdot does not guarantee notability. See Alexa's traffic ranking 71.96.234.140 18:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Bear in mind that, according to Alexa, Wikitruth has been online for just over one month. Many sites that have been around far longer have far lower traffic rankings. Besides, traffic ranking is not a perfect measure of notability. --Myles Long 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep, just so I don't have to look at the actual website itself ever again. Beyond that, if this discussion is ruled as a keep, could folks hold off for a good long while before relisting it for deletion? An ongoing flamewar over Just Another Website created by some disgruntled ex-Wikipedians will only increase visibility in this site -- which I assume those voting "delete" are against. -- llywrch 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Adamantine Keep Censorship and deletionism is inherently bad, no matter what. Denying a problem exists only allows that problem to fester, then suprise you when it does go critical and blow up, possibly severely damaging or even outright 'killing' you or your case in the process. Take heed... E. Sn0 =31337= 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that censorship is inherently bad and even someone voting delete would/should likely agree with that. I interpret delete here to mean not notable and keep to mean notable. Arguments for keep are stronger if based on notability. --Ds13 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would think that showing up on The Guardian and Slashdot in short order would count as notable. I've yet to see a web forum that doesn't have a thread about Wikitruth now. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge with Criticisms of Wikipedia. Best solution now. If we delete, they'll scream of censorship. It certainly doesn't meet notability, yet. Copysan 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia per Edwin Smith. At this moment in time, I believe that the site is not yet notable enough for it's own article, and agree with CorbinSimpson's analysis - it is a small site with similar credentials to Wikipedia Review, and neither deserve an artice at this time. --72.160.82.165 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, The site has had more than 100,000 hits in a few days. Is that not noteable?
  • Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. They do make some valid criticisms, but I think that the Criticisms of Wikipedia page might be a better place to address it instead of a separate article. I also think it's a really bad idea if this page gets deleted for obvious reasons. So I say just merge/redirect it. --Champthom 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is lost in the flood, but I think that a mention on The Guardian, Slashdot, and Digg makes it just notable enough. Jimbo himself mentioned them, too, not that that adds much to their notability. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait. Whatever you do, don't lose the text of the article. Within a few days, it should die down. Being mentioned by e.g. Digg is only notable enough to attract a deletion debate. This site is just starting, and we don't know if it'll be successful or not. I suggest keep, and bring it back for deletion in a month or so. We've had plenty of other non-notable articles remain for longer; it won't hurt. -- Now if I had to vote now, I'd say Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. --Geoffrey 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at worst merge/redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. It seems that it has a sufficient level of interest to be worth keeping in some form. Maybe it could be expanded to include any notable criticisms of Wikitruth to make it as NPOV as possible. --Joshtek 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per CorbinSimpson & Ian13. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the site is most certainly notable, due to the numerous news appearances. Besides, there are a huge number of keep votes on this page; we shold be pretty close to consensus to actually delete something that violates no policies and is in fact a current and relevant item in the news. --Doopokko 05:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and make it very nNPOV ;-))))--Biopresto 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Openly contains criticism of Wikipedia and Jimbo. - Xed 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ROFL, do you also joke with the TSA that you have a bomb in your luggage? Pcb21 Pete 08:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You're either with us or against us. - Xed 09:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Please tell me you're joking. --Myles Long 15:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
          • If you want to remain on Wikipedia, you will not contravene Jimbo's will. It would be best if all users would do their best not to interfere with the Wikipedia's management of such issues. It's Jimbo's house, not yours, and therefore you will follow and respect Wikipedia. If you don't like that, you are free to find another hobby. - Xed 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
            • If it's Jimbo's will that neither he nor Wikipedia be openly criticized perhaps he should make it a policy. -- noosphere 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm leaning towards feeling that this might have achieved enough notability (even if Slashdot is merely reprinting other people's news, it undeniably draws more attention to its subject matter) Barneyboo (Talk) 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is one of the very few that concern the abuse of power by Administrators. Unexplained WP:OFFICE deletion/protections are bad enough, but Article History alterations are so far out of line that, IMHO, anyone caught doing it should be banned for life, even if it is Jimbo himself. Meneth 14:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Tiny little website with an Alexa ranking that hasn't broken into the top 5,000 during a moment of prominence which will probably be brief. And almost all the hits are probably from Wikipedians. Keeping it would be self-absorbed and unencyclopedic; it is the equivalent of Britannica publishing an article about an argument the editorial staff has in the office one day. Piccadilly 16:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Whether or not your two speculative probably comments are true doesn't matter; the article satisfies the criteria laid out in the notability of a website guidelines. Simple. If your Britannica analogy included a website that resulted from the employee argument which was subsequently published in a non-trivial manner by several other notable publications then your analogy, also, would satisfy notability criteria. Guidelines are not hard policy, but you're not suggesting an overriding principle which would compel us to disregard the guidelines. --Ds13 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Completely bloody ridiculous. Exactly WHAT policy is this page infringing? Non-notability is out of the question! The site has been visited by people in excess of 100,000, has been Slashdotted, and covered in several other media outlets. Its obviously notable, its obviously verifiable, and I cant see any reason for deleting it other than what they say is true: we can't take the criticism! I LOVE wikipedia, I HATE the sore-losing idiots at Wikitruth, but this article just shouldnt be deleted. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Alexa rankings only count users who use Microsoft Internet Explorer, not the frequent Wikipedia and Slashdot readers who use better web browsers. Alexa rankings are therefor meaningless. --Nick Dillinger 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the notability guidelines for website inclusion:

  • Strong Keep -- First, I find the arguments for notability very persuasive. Second, PR is certainly a consideration here. Third, I don't know all the details, but speedy is to be used only for the most obvious cases. This doesn't even meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it's obviously generated substantial discussion. I'm not saying we should keep all unencyclopedic articles just because there are previous questions as to process, but from a PR and community transparency perspective, it needs to be considered. --MikeJ9919 19:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets the notability criteria in WP:WEB. RexNL 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. meets WP:WEB criterion as it was publicized by Slashdot. Vacuum 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for web content

Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

As can be seen, Wikitruth clearly qualifies for notability, and notice that it qualifies if it meets any one of the following criteria. Any other conclusion would clearly be censorship. --Nick Dillinger 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Good comment. Its a lucky thing that this site became notable in time for the AFD. Or else it might have been protected from recreation like another notable critic site that we all know and love, Wikipedia Review. No amount of notability will get that on Wikipedia now lol. 203.122.195.111 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alexa rankings are, to be honest, complete and total bullshit when it comes to rating the popularity of a site. However, this does not change the fact that they are still citable in an AfD. More importantly, they have been removed entirely from WP:WEB, so don't worry either way about them. If I were one of the people trying to save this article, I would be MUCH more worried about demonstrating that the mentions of Wikitruth in these two articles, here and here, are actually notable mentions. I quote from WP:WEB, criterion 1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." How strange, then, that the first article only mentions Wikitruth in two different sentences. The first sentence gives us "www.wikitruth.info." The second sentence is just a passing mention. The second article is even worse — all it says is that the first article has information! Seriously, this is just ridiculous. The irrefutable truth of the matter is that this site has been set up do nothing more than inflame and polarize the community (and at that, it's doing a fucking brilliant job, as the comments on this page have shown)... I have nothing more to add. If I have not managed to convince you yet, then I doubt much more can change your minds. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I love how people make their vote more emphatic by adding "strong", size, adjectives, color, etc., as if that pumps up the value of that vote. Well, I trump you all: Adamantium-Strength Super Keep! not an actual vote Haha, the battle has been one with one fell swoop! — WCityMike (T | C) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Has to be a keep I didn't actually see the link on slashdot but I think that just adds fuel to the fire, and further backs up an argument to keep the article. It is a very fair point to suggest merging or moving the article, but I personally think that the notability of it now warrants its own artilce, hence my comment. --Wisden17 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this article, as apparently the images of deletion logs which are posted there indicate that it is not a hoax, and thus, a site started by some admins notable enough to get a mention on slashdot. Terror Island 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign this before)
  • Keep. was Slashdotted, has a Guardian and a Register article written on it. Lotsa hits too. Plus, wouldn't it be sort of weirdly ironic if we deleted it? I think they are probably hoping we do . Geedubber 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This website should be above censoring critics. Wikitruth was cited in The Guardian[3] which is how I became aware of it. I think a lot of smart wikipedians read a site like that and learn from it. Any good site learns from criticism and doesn't just blow it off --the latter is the "internet" thing to do, which usually equates to being foolish and pig-headed. As per the above comment, deleting it seems to fall into their plans: "OMG, we're what Jimbo Wales/Wikipedia doesn't want you to see!" If they have legs they'll keep walking, if not they'll get left behind. -- Bobak 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge. It's all been said above. --Brent 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like it or not, it's become notable. Whether it stays that way is to be seen, but I feel that it will, thus I feel to keep is the best option. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to criticism of Wikipedia, per above. And God help whoever has to close this! --bainer (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it is verifiable. WP is not paper. WP can write about everything. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia (basically, don't deny criticism) Will (E@) T 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to criticism of Wikipedia, per above. Alphax τεχ 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect as above. not every picayune website deserves an article, not even if it criticizes wikipedia. Derex 07:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable, it's current, and it's going to blow up in WP's face if it goes - especially right now, when the subject is hot. Is that pandering to public opinion? I don't think so. Like it or not, the project will not survive only on the strength of our good intentions. It has to prove itself as a reliable, objective entity that can take criticism in a mature, adult manner. I think that deleting (and ESPECIALLY using a "speedy delete") to remove a page about an organization that is critical of Wikipedia will look really, really bad. Instead, why not show the world what Wikipedia is all about, and write the best damn article we can about this site. Crisp, concise text. Solid references. Both sides of the debate, presented in a neutral manner. Someone wants to learn what all the fuss is about? Hey, read it in Wikipedia. My advice? Step back from this one, take a breather, and let the editors go at it. If the deletionists still feel strongly about it in a few months. revisit the issue. I, for one, will still say keep - there's a LOT of other articles that need our time and energy... --Ckatz 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - i found your arguments very questionable. It is like saying, don't kill this man, because the TV team is watching us. We could kill, but not if the TV team watches. Your argument is for duck downs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect to Criticism of wikipedia. Know thy enemy. cow_2001 12:26, 20 April 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.