Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziopedia

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 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ziopedia

Seems to fail WP:WEB pretty substantially. Delete Mak (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - The site claims to be neutral, but I could find nothing but attack messages and messages against either Judaism, Isreal, or the Zionist movement. It's an attack site. --Walter Görlitz 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply The site doesn't make any claims other than aiming to be a one-stop repository for info on Zionism, its history, supporters and opponents. It doesn't contain any messages either. It's a news site and a Wikipedia style encyclopedia on Zionism and related topics. --Andrewwinkler 02:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete "Nothing but attack messages" is an unsubstiated accusation of someone who obviously doesn't share the views expressed in the articles on the Ziopedia site. Mak is making unsubstantiated non-compliance allegations. -- --Andrewwinkler 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the site is blatantly anti-semitic garbage or not is not at issue here. The issue is notability and verifiability. It seems to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, thus it should be deleted. Can you give outside verifiable sources for the information in your article, and somehow show its larger importance? Mak (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply I'll provide 'verifyability proof of notability', no worries. Interesting though how quickly you guys mobbed up like a flock of seagulls on a bag of chips and smeared the Ziopedia site as beeing antisemitic and/or neonazi... but as they say, in the olden days an antisemite was someone who hated Jews, these days it's someone whom the Jews hate
Reply I know you really want to believe we're a Zionist conspiracy, but the simple fact is that we "mob up like a flock of seagulls" whenever somebody tries to use Wikipedia to publicize an unknown website, like this one, for example. Fan1967 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While I may not share the views of the site, the statement is substiated and not an accusation. Show one page on the site that is pro-Zionist, pro-Isreal, or pro-Jewish. I am neutral on the topic and I believe that point of view is essential to any rational debate. The issue at hand, however, is not the site's content as has been noted, but the fact it's not notable and we could just as easily link to a pro-Zionist, pro-Zionist, pro-Isreal, and pro-Jewish site that is non-notable to balance the extremism, but if it's an unimporant site, there's not need. --Walter Görlitz 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply While the ZioPedia site might not contain any article supportive of Israel/Zionism - which is not a reflection of the editor/publishing policy of the site, but the mere result of the views of the people posting article on the site - that doesn't make the statement of my Wikipedia contribution incorrect that the site contains information on Zionism, its history, supporters and opponenents, does it? What you guys are doing is mobbing up against an entry on a site that contains views that you dislike. This is nothing but blatant censureship. No wonder Wikipedia is frequently referred to as 'Ziopedia' itself. You should be glad that the ZioPedia site is 'repositioning' the 'Ziopedia' brand and show a bit more tolerance to diverse views. -- Andrewwinkler 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alexa rank is 5,594,489, and I can find very few references to it anywhere else. Fan1967 04:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply see above... I'll provide proof of notability, no worries
  • Delete But only because it is not notable.--Dakart 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dakart, reserve comment on purpose. Rockpocket (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with above -- Samir धर्म 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia covers nutty sites all the time (FreeRepublic comes immediately to mind), but we do have standards on which nutty sites it covers. Since this site fails those standards miserably, we don't need an article on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply funny how you guys are scrambling to make up some 'intelligent' excuse for blatant, good old fashion censureship.
      • Aw, I didn't get accused of being a tool of the Zionist establishment. How disappointing. (And, for the record, this is getting less comments than AFDs on MySpace sites used to before CSD A7 allowed admins to speedily delete them.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Vizjim 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, is on number one position on Google search, and is mentioned on 6 out of first 10 entries on page one, NineMsn it's mentioned on the first 3 entries on page one. Hardly a case of non-notability, is it?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.86.237 (talk • contribs)
    • Damn those international Jewish conspiracy lizards, for forcing me to point out that searching for a made-up word and finding that the site that made it up is top of the google list, isn't exactly a winning argument. Damn them all to hell. Vizjim 11:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact remains though that it's been mentioned on a number of occasion, thus the excuse of 'non-notability' or irrelevance doesn't work here. The fact alone, how you guys scramble to get rid of those two contributions shows how relevant the Ziopedia site is.
      • So if it's deleted from Wikipedia, that's a reason not to delete it from Wikipedia? That's...beautiful. Google search shows no independent mainstream media mentions. I've been "mentioned" on a number of occasions - I seem to remember our vicar mentioning me at my wedding, for example - but nobody's yet written a Wikipedia article about me. Vizjim 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have to admit that's some incredible Chutzpah (sorry, couldn't resist) to argue that a google search for Ziopedia will turn up this website, and that counts as notability. Nice try, guys, really. Fan1967 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't care what the site is about. It has a mercilessly low Alexa rank and only 36 unique Google hits. That's enough non-notability for me. -- Kicking222 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absent any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Seems to meet WP:VSCA, though... Just zis Guy you know? 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Advertising. Vanity. Whatever. IrishGuy 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Ziocruft. Beno1000 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete attack site. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete what? the alexa rank is more than 5 milllion. WTF? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chutzpah indeed. Obviously fails WP:WEB. Shalom. Grandmasterka 02:42, 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.