Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (3rd nomination)
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 was Speedy keep, for reasons below and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 10200 Google hits, 74,000 Alexa rank, only a few press coverage mentions that claim to notability. Also a pure attack on Wikipedia. Fivebytwo 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:WEB says that the criteria for inclusion of web sites is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." As the nomination itself says there are "a few press coverage mentions" which means that this condition is met. The footnotes have at the moment four independent articles with the external links having another article. It should also be noted that this is the third nomination. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth 20 April 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination), and that being horrid about Wikipedia is not a criterion for deletion. JASpencer 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per the above. --Myles Long 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as much as I hate to say that. WP:WEB criteria is passed, media coverage is from reliable sources. Google and Alexa ranks are not valid deletion criteria. Nor is the fact that its a site critical of wikipedia if that were the case we'd have to delete The Village Voice, The New York Times, MSNBC and several other media companies. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. The site passes WP:WEB, neither Google nor Alexa are absolute notability guides, and the fact that the site is critical of Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to any deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 14:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This site meets the requirements of WP:WEB and is well sourced. Thryduulf 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as per all above. Davewild 17:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Bad nomination reasons. Google/Alexa is not the only consideration of notability. Wikipedia is not censored. The nominator also seems to be a sock puppet.Tyro 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep (he said, holding his nose), bad faith nom by now-blocked troll. Corvus cornix 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, bad faith nomination - verifiable, sourced, and referenced in media. It doesn't look good to keep trying to delete something critical of Wikipedia. -- Mithent 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.