Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild

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

The result of the debate was delete, a strong consensus that the WikiProject structure is not to be used in such a way. Hiding talk 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild

The sole intent of this project is to facilitate the creation of articles that support a POV that has not been permitted in other articles based on a concensus of editors. The discussion page of this article has become an attack list of editors that refute the POV of the major editor to this project. I support deletion or move to userspace as this is not what a WikiProject is supposed to be about.--MONGO 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete creating an entire Wikiproject with the sole intention of it being to defend the creator's (User:Striver) articles from afd's is not acceptable.--Jersey Devil 09:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a project just for POV pushing is not a good idea. --rogerd 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Attack projects are best placed in /dev/null. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This project is an attempt to make the content of wikipedia adhere more closely to Striver's point of wiew. By targetting specific articles for deletion, he hopes to preserve the pages he has recently created, simply by getting more votes. This has the effect of disrupting the operation of consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A group for mobilizing ...uh, we aren't supposed to say that ...you know, the other puppet word. Weregerbil 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another astroturfing, POV-pushing project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a exact copy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. There is absolutly nothing that differentiats them from eachother, excet that this one has a fewer people intrested in the subject. Take a look, make a comparision. --Striver 09:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But, Striver, the goals of the two WikiProjects are different, and I think it is the presumed POV of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild that is bothering people. I personally see nothing wrong with it in theory, and vote keep -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 09:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, boy, I didn't read the talk page, which has me thoroughly confused. I'm very sorry, Striver but the comments on that page about your opinions of other editors, even under caveat emptor (i.e. Please be civil) undermine your argument of the legitimacy of this WikiProject. Delete -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Is that it? Well, then ill delete them, any more problems left? Oh, and just for the record, go chek out the same section in the Muslim Guild. I have never seen anyone complain about that section there, and its pretty heated there, so i didnt think anyone would have a problem with one here. I guess i was wrong, but to delete the whole guild based on that? --Striver 10:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way are they different? They have the exact same mission statments.--Striver 10:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per weregerbil. David | Talk 10:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could i have a concret example of the guild pov pushing? A quote? I dont mean a opinion. --Striver 10:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia dosn't delete projects only since the topic of the project can be controversial, to give some perspective, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. --Striver 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per Tom. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't see the mission or principles of this group as defined as problematic. The discussion page is 9/11 conspiracy article-centric, but supposing the group gains more members, that should lessen. Per WP:PJ Striver should probably have had "at least 5–10 people involved" before creating the group, but it doesn't appear to be a requirement. Per Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects this project should possibly have been taken to WP:RFC before submitting it for deletion. Striver appears to be trying to respond to above complaints by making changes. Schizombie 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't believe the history of the discussion page. Is this for real? Who takes the time to make a list like that? Isopropyl 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. Xoloz 18:27, 7 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.