Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th 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 was early close as keep, no chance of this ending in anything else. See WP:SNOW. Neil ム 10:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

That is right, I am nominating the Wikitruth article for deletion. Here's why. All the attention this website got was a brief spurt of "Hey, look at this!" Since then, no one outside of the Wikipedia and Wikitruth communities have given non-negligible attention to it. If I remember correctly, things that get their fifteen minutes of fame on the Internet from Slashdot and then are not heard of again do not constitute notable subjects. MessedRocker (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think your Notability is not temporary might not be that strong. If I understand the article right, they have a great long-term effect to Wikipedia or perhaps Wikimedia in general and that is enough notability for me even if there are no more continued coverage of the site--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What effect? MessedRocker (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It got the attention of the Big Guy right? So something really important happened. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So is anything that gets the attention of Jimbo notable? Oh, wait... :D But seriously, that's not a great way to establish notability. daveh4h 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Nicely done. :-) You've just validated their complaint, methinks, by arguing "notice from jimbo == important!". I for one refuse to bow down before the graven image of Jimbo Wales. Delete as I disagree with Dhartung, below, that notability is eternal. --Agamemnon2 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks? For the record, I do not bow before the Jimbo statue I have in my bedroom and have not polished it for months. Also, I didn't think Mzoli's was notable either. I was pointing out that it is the same kind of argument that went on at that afd, which are terrible arguments. I'd like to see any supreme validations from Jimbo avoided. daveh4h 06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) - Ok I'm not a fan of arguing but my first comment was that it put Mr. Wales on the defensive (calling it hoax) not because he rewarded it with his glorious presence or something. I think something is very wrong with this Afd since it is already the 5th time and most of them is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a Google screwup.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I thought notability was generally permanent. This gets several Google News hits, and there seem to be some at least semi-reliable sources (unfortunately, there're also several self-published ones, as well as another Wikipedia article used as a "source"), but this might scrape through on a few sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is permanent, but what I am arguing is that this is not notable as it had fifteen minutes of fame and then no one cared about it again. MessedRocker (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - has received multiple independent articles on the subject, and notability is not temporary. That's really all there is to it. --Ybbor^Talk 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per above. Travb (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Per above/ WP:WEB, notability is permanent, nothing has change sense the last AfD that resulted in keep . Tiptoety 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Messed. Hardly encyclopedic. Danny 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: If it doesn't amass any more notability over the next several months, I would nominate it for deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If it was once notable, it will be notable for all time. Fosnez 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd also like to say that perhaps being nominated for deletion a number of time and kept each time would suggest that this should not be nominated again. Ever. Fosnez 04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On DRV recently DGG proposed that a "keep" result should give an article a six-month immunity from AFD, which sounds good to me. At least this was, what, three months? I would disagree that any number of nominations means permanent immunity, though. Consensus can change (look at BLP). --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it would take increasing periods after successive keeps. I dont regard a 2nd nomination after 3 to 6 months abusive, nor do i regard even rapid renomination after non-consensus abusive. But this was not the 2nd nomination. The first nom in April 06 was no-consensus; reasonably nominated again in Oct 06, and the decision was keep. So far, so good. The 3rd in April 07 was speedy keep. Again, a reasonable interval, but given that strong confirmation ofthe previous decision, a rapid renomination would not be in order. So the 4th just two months later in June 07--and after first removing citations from the article--which is not a sign of good faith-- was already abusive. It was properly closed again as another speedy keep. That should settle the matter for some time to come. This 5th Afd 3 months after that is abusive, is an attempt to misuse WP process, and I would suggest an immediate snow close. Two speedy keeps in a row establishes a very firm consensus. Unless there is some evidence that the general view of these articles has turned sharply more negative, this nomination was totally unjustified. An individual might disagree with all the keeps, but to insist on repeating the process again after only a few months is POINT at the least. At the least, SNOW close, keep. And, though we dont have a rule yet to say it, in my opinion any further AfD should require the permission of Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The fourth AfD was speedy kept because it was a bad faith nomination, not because it was too soon or because the article was worth keeping (that was not discussed in the two hours the AfD was open, only the motivation of the nominator). Such an AfD should in no way count as a real AfD, and to claim that this AfD is too soon after that one is therefor incorrect. Fram 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notability, once attained, stays to remain. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question Was its notability ever really established though or is that being based on the survival of past AfDs? It is an honest question, I'm not trying to upset anyone. I've known about it for quite awhile, as have most of you here I imagine, but that does not equal notability. Some of the google news archive stories seem to mention them in passing, although I admit that I haven't looked very closely at them yet. I am on the fence on this one right now. daveh4h 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These sources are too weak. Very few are actually about the subject of this article, and those that are are largely not features, but just blurbs, and the Metafilter source isn't an article at all. If no better sources are found, there's really no other choice but to get rid of it. Some of the material could be merged to criticism of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just one of several Wikipedia critical websites on the web, and it is not, and has not ever been, one of the largest or most active of the websites. The sources which have been used to keep the last times (and, I am sad to see, probably this time) are trivial, Wikitruth is mentioned in passing when interviewing some person critical of Wikipedia who just happens to run the website. Sources aside, and judging on merits, the website has not published a single article, opinion, editorial, or whatever, which has been taken seriously by the mainstream media, a journalist looking for something critical to write about Wikipedia will not be turning to Wikitruth for such material, A journalist will be looking for mistakes, gaps, and falsehoods in Wikipedia articles, not the rants and attack pages over contributors which Wikitruth provides. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has survived four AfDs, trying to remove it now is purely procedural. It's clearly established as notable; the fact that there are other, more popular criticism sites, has nothing to do with anything. If it was notable then, it's notable now. Xihr 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's inclusion in Wikipedia, before it was notable, made it notable? daveh4h 06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Stricken as I misread the comment. daveh4h 06:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the record I hate this fucking site, its nothing but slimy attacks on people like FCYTravis, Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin, Danny, etc... the list goes on... but at this point this is becoming extreme WP:POINT material. I'm all for keeping any article thats already survived 4 AFD debates. Even if that article is something as disgusting as this website.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, I thought this was obvious. There are a lot less worthy website articles out there, why pick on "close-call" ones just for the sake of argument. One nomination is enough. More just take time away from making Wikipedia better. -Rocket000 06:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikitruth has an article on this very thing: Quintuple Jeopardy. Colonel Warden 06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is the fifth AfD? Is it going to be nominated every week with essentially an 'I don't like it' rationale until it somehow slips through the net? It meets Wikipedia notability guidelines so it should be included and borderline abuse of process like this doesn't make Wikipedia look any better. Nick mallory 07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even the nominator seems to admit that it has met WP:WEB there is no "temporary" nature to this. JASpencer 09:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and per Danny. ElinorD (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability established. Keeping this site as an article in no way endorses its contents. Quatloo 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not sufficiently notable for an independent article. They are mentioned a few times in Criticism of Wikipedia, and that's good enough. It looks, however, like the outcome is going to be keep, in which case this article should not be nominated again for at least a year. Everyking 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment I actually don't mind Wikitruth (gasp!) but the sources here are quite poor, (I actually read them) only about 2 or 3 which are from very reputable/paper publications, and even they don't particularly cover wikitruth in depth. Looking at the website, it is not edited/contributed to very often now. I reckon if we give it 6 months, it will hardly be edited at all and we could justify a delete. So I've no particular view on this AfD but just wanted to say that if you read the sources, they're not very convincing, and about half the references are to wikis or blogs or something.Merkinsmum 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. There's no question that they've become notable enough to have been covered in several reputable publications; however, these mentions generally only mention the website as part of the larger whole of Wikipedia criticism, and don't cover Wikitruth itself enough for a full verifiable article to be written on it. Thus, a merge to the main Criticism article would be best. --krimpet⟲ 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a wate of time, as nothing has changed since the last AfD only a few months ago, and the nominator's rationale is completely refuted by well-established guidelines on notability, namely. WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. Tarc 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course notability is permanent, but has this site ever been notable? Everyking 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the site is relativly notable. -Icewedge 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and sets a bad impression removing criticism site articles when there are many less notable articles about, SqueakBox 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:N as the website has received non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources. Now that I've read their main page I see they reported on the Richardson family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article which was deleted out of process for over a month. That really makes me wonder how often things like this go unnoticed. Burntsauce 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The above reasons are good, but I want to add something. I don't see what's "wrong" with the article except that it describes a site critical of Wikipedia. It's sourced, the sources are verifiable, the article is neutral, and it's survived several AFDs already. If anything, the repeated attempts to delete this article only helps prove Wikitruth's point. --UsaSatsui 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia per Cúchullain. I think people tend to overestimate its importance because of the strong emotions tied to it one way or the other. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's crap, but we have other articles about conspiracy theories and the like, and to deny their existence would be uncivilized. Well, MessedRocker, at least you ended up as an article on WikiTruth, headlined "The Fifth Times the Charm!!". Subheadline is "Wikipedia tries, tries again." All because Wikipedia allowed you to make a nomination, oh the shame! There's untruth, and then there's Wikitruth. Wanna read the article? Neither do I. Mandsford 01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I know that I will probably be placed with the infamous "spa tag", but I can only assure you that I am a concerned follower of this site. This in mind, I will refrain from making a vote; yet, I must comment. I just want a little editorial balance here. To get right down to it, Wikitruth shouldn't prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our Wikipedian culture. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate its crotchets are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously hectoring and have always been a fierce proponent of assuming good faith. But I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to punish Wikitruth for its snippy deeds. In many ways, given a choice of having Wikitruth spread their warped gasbags via this poorly written Encyclopaedia article or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials and call it a day. After having read this, you may think that as distasteful as it might sound, Wikitruth is basically a bad organization. Nevertheless, you should always remember that in a larger context, Wikitruth's sick, abysmal crusades remind us that acts of jingoism continue in our midst. I could write more on the moral depravities of this site, but alas I am a mother and my child needs feeding. Good day, SweetOleander 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes, "fifteen minutes of fame" that has been recorded in several independent sources is the standard for notability here. This notability, once conferred, remains. Obvious keep per Wikipedia policies and standards. ◄Zahakiel► 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Colonel Warden. Ironic that they have such an article! Seriously, though, I am convinced from the above discussion that the site does have notability, even if it does criticize our project and some of our editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:04, 29 September 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.