491:
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,
1001:. 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
955:. 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 Knowledge. 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. --
292:(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.--
983:
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 "Knowledge tries, tries again." All because
784:
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
184:
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 Knowledge and Wikitruth communities have given non-negligible attention to it. If I remember correctly, things
996:
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
708:
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
Knowledge notability guidelines so it should be included and borderline abuse of process like this doesn't make Knowledge look any better.
511:
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
273:
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
596:
when interviewing some person critical of
Knowledge 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
554:
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
490:
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
567:
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
592:. This is just one of several Knowledge 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
468:
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).
203:. 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 Knowledge or perhaps Wikimedia in general and that is enough notability for me even if there are no more continued coverage of the site--
800:. 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 Knowledge criticism, and don't cover Wikitruth itself enough for a full
1013:
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
679:
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
Knowledge better.
1056:
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,
619:. 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
1030:- 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 Knowledge policies and standards.
601:
be turning to
Wikitruth for such material, A journalist will be looking for mistakes, gaps, and falsehoods in Knowledge articles, not the rants and attack pages over contributors which Wikitruth provides.
653:
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
825:. 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.
311:
at least semi-reliable sources (unfortunately, there're also several self-published ones, as well as another
Knowledge article used as a "source"), but this might scrape through on a few sources.
1065:
785:
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.
256:
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.
332:
700:
318:
1022:
975:
713:
238:
223:
209:
947:
789:
584:
268:
988:
959:
868:
772:
729:
684:
611:
278:
1048:
856:
542:
381:
817:
756:
744:
671:
559:
251:
477:
440:
424:
842:
393:
365:
348:
177:
122:
117:
112:
107:
102:
97:
92:
833:
627:
456:
643:
506:
452:- 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.
768:, 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.
516:
1019:
998:
1010:
194:
361:
880:
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
323:
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.
141:
657:
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.
298:
984:
Knowledge allowed you to make a nomination, oh the shame! There's untruth, and then there's
Wikitruth. Wanna read the article? Neither do I.
378:
1018:
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,
86:
900:
895:
904:
357:
185:
that get their fifteen minutes of fame on the
Internet from Slashdot and then are not heard of again do not constitute notable subjects.
133:
69:
887:
80:
63:
971:
per Cúchullain. I think people tend to overestimate its importance because of the strong emotions tied to it one way or the other.
342:- has received multiple independent articles on the subject, and notability is not temporary. That's really all there is to it. --
997:
prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our
495:
And, though we dont have a rule yet to say it, in my opinion any further AfD should require the permission of Deletion Review.
555:
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.
909:
864:
as notable and sets a bad impression removing criticism site articles when there are many less notable articles about,
1059:
579:
921:
928:
17:
1079:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1043:
891:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
150:
145:
419:
154:
307:, I thought notability was generally permanent. This gets several Google News hits, and there seem to be
917:
159:
137:
1080:
883:
826:
36:
913:
171:
968:
796:
765:
693:
569:
328:
219:
190:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
486:
I would argue that it would take increasing periods after successive keeps. I dont regard a
576:
804:
article to be written on it. Thus, a merge to the main Criticism article would be best. --
8:
930:
for over a month. That really makes me wonder how often things like this go unnoticed.
764:, not sufficiently notable for an independent article. They are mentioned a few times in
752:
notability established. Keeping this site as an article in no way endorses its contents.
697:
606:
377:, notability is permanent, nothing has change sense the last AfD that resulted in keep .
312:
247:
notable? Oh, wait... :D But seriously, that's not a great way to establish notability.
167:
1031:
539:
474:
972:
811:
741:
710:
665:
640:
634:
556:
324:
275:
248:
215:
186:
68:
163:
415:
931:
786:
654:
573:
346:
265:
985:
956:
865:
839:
769:
726:
681:
603:
58:
49:
1036:
853:
780:
I actually don't mind Wikitruth (gasp!) but the sources here are quite poor,
722:
535:
502:
470:
402:
374:
293:
261:
233:
204:
806:
753:
738:
658:
877:
801:
620:
453:
437:
406:
229:
838:
Of course notability is permanent, but has this site ever been notable?
390:
343:
633:
It's inclusion in Knowledge, before it was notable, made it notable?
1006:
830:
624:
513:
53:
1015:
1002:
497:
244:
1073:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
512:
that this AfD is too soon after that one is therefor incorrect.
405:
over the next several months, I would nominate it for deletion.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
721:Even the nominator seems to admit that it has met
48:, no chance of this ending in anything else. See
432:- If it was once notable, it will be notable for
232:right? So something really important happened. --
1083:). No further edits should be made to this page.
534:, notability, once attained, stays to remain. --
123:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (8th nomination)
118:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (7th nomination)
113:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination)
108:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th nomination)
103:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)
98:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (3rd nomination)
93:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination)
692:Wikitruth has an article on this very thing:
274:any supreme validations from Jimbo avoided.
1009:, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some
927:article which was deleted out of process
725:there is no "temporary" nature to this.
245:anything that gets the attention of Jimbo
597:critical to write about Knowledge will
264:, below, that notability is eternal. --
14:
389:as per Messed. Hardly encyclopedic.
87:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth.info
639:Stricken as I misread the comment.
23:
24:
1095:
827:WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary
852:the site is relativly notable.
401:: If it doesn't amass any more
81:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1066:06:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1049:02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1023:02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
989:01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
976:22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
960:18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
948:17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
869:17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
857:15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
843:13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
834:13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
818:13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
790:12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
773:11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
757:09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
745:09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
730:09:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
714:07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
701:06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
685:06:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
672:06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
644:06:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
637:06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
628:06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
612:06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
585:06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
560:04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
543:04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
517:11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
507:05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
478:04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
457:04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
441:04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
425:03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
394:02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
382:02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
366:02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
349:02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
333:02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
319:02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
299:07:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
279:06:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
269:06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
252:04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
239:02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
224:02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
210:02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
195:02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
64:10:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
13:
1:
737:per nominator and per Danny.
1061:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
568:material could be merged to
228:It got the attention of the
7:
10:
1100:
884:Richardson family murders
1076:Please do not modify it.
623:then, it's notable now.
550:Was its notability ever
32:Please do not modify it.
969:Criticism of Knowledge
797:Criticism of Knowledge
782:(I actually read them)
766:Criticism of Knowledge
570:criticism of Knowledge
75:AfDs for this article:
260:as I disagree with
46:early close as keep
999:Wikipedian culture
694:Quintuple Jeopardy
493:SNOW close, keep.
1011:Polident Partials
609:
582:
423:
1091:
1078:
1064:
1062:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1034:
944:
941:
938:
935:
925:
907:
814:
809:
670:
663:
607:
580:
413:
410:
315:
314:Ten Pound Hammer
296:
236:
207:
175:
157:
61:
56:
34:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1081:deletion review
1074:
1060:
1058:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1005:extracted sans
942:
939:
936:
933:
898:
882:
812:
807:
668:
659:
408:
313:
294:
234:
205:
148:
132:
129:
127:
89:
73:
59:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1097:
1086:
1085:
1069:
1068:
1051:
1025:
991:
978:
962:
950:
871:
859:
847:
846:
845:
820:
792:
775:
759:
747:
732:
716:
703:
698:Colonel Warden
687:
674:
648:
647:
646:
614:
587:
562:
545:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
481:
480:
460:
459:
444:
443:
427:
396:
384:
368:
356:as per above.
351:
337:
336:
335:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
254:
182:
181:
128:
126:
125:
120:
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1096:
1084:
1082:
1077:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1042:
1035:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1020:SweetOleander
1017:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
992:
990:
987:
982:
979:
977:
974:
970:
966:
963:
961:
958:
954:
951:
949:
946:
945:
929:
926:
923:
919:
915:
911:
906:
902:
897:
893:
889:
885:
879:
875:
872:
870:
867:
863:
860:
858:
855:
851:
848:
844:
841:
837:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
821:
819:
816:
815:
810:
803:
799:
798:
793:
791:
788:
783:
779:
776:
774:
771:
767:
763:
760:
758:
755:
751:
748:
746:
743:
740:
736:
733:
731:
728:
724:
720:
717:
715:
712:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
691:
688:
686:
683:
678:
675:
673:
667:
664:
662:
656:
652:
649:
645:
642:
638:
636:
631:
630:
629:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
610:
605:
600:
595:
591:
588:
586:
583:
577:
575:
571:
566:
563:
561:
558:
553:
549:
546:
544:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
518:
515:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
499:
494:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
476:
472:
467:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
455:
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:
442:
439:
435:
431:
428:
426:
421:
417:
412:
411:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
376:
373:: Per above/
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
316:
310:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
280:
277:
272:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
253:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
237:
231:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
214:What effect?
213:
212:
211:
208:
202:
199:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
88:
84:
82:
79:
78:
76:
71:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1075:
1072:
1053:
1027:
993:
980:
973:Sχeptomaniac
964:
952:
932:
881:
873:
861:
849:
822:
805:
794:
781:
777:
761:
749:
734:
718:
711:Nick mallory
705:
689:
676:
660:
650:
632:
616:
598:
593:
589:
564:
551:
547:
531:
496:
492:
487:
465:
449:
433:
429:
407:
398:
386:
370:
353:
339:
325:MessedRocker
308:
304:
291:
257:
216:MessedRocker
200:
187:MessedRocker
183:
45:
43:
31:
28:
795:Merge into
802:verifiable
787:Merkinsmum
594:in passing
574:Cúchullain
403:notability
266:Agamemnon2
1007:Novocaine
1003:bicuspids
986:Mandsford
957:UsaSatsui
876:. Meets
866:SqueakBox
854:-Icewedge
840:Everyking
770:Everyking
727:JASpencer
682:Rocket000
604:Sjakkalle
399:Weak keep
354:Weak keep
305:Weak keep
134:Wikitruth
70:Wikitruth
1039:Zahakiel
1016:jingoism
655:WP:POINT
608:(Check!)
548:Question
536:Dhartung
471:Dhartung
434:all time
420:contribs
379:Tiptoety
295:Lenticel
262:Dhartung
235:Lenticel
206:Lenticel
178:View log
994:Comment
901:protect
896:history
808:krimpet
778:comment
754:Quatloo
739:ElinorD
661:ALKIVAR
641:daveh4h
635:daveh4h
621:notable
557:daveh4h
466:Comment
450:Comment
276:daveh4h
249:daveh4h
230:Big Guy
151:protect
146:history
50:WP:SNOW
905:delete
762:Delete
742:(talk)
735:Delete
723:WP:WEB
590:Delete
565:Delete
552:really
454:Fosnez
438:Fosnez
409:Seicer
387:Delete
375:WP:WEB
258:Delete
243:So is
155:delete
967:with
965:Merge
922:views
914:watch
910:links
677:Keep.
391:Danny
358:Travb
344:Ybbor
172:views
164:watch
160:links
16:<
1054:Keep
1028:Keep
981:Keep
953:Keep
918:logs
892:talk
888:edit
878:WP:N
874:Keep
862:Keep
850:Keep
831:Tarc
823:Keep
750:Keep
719:Keep
706:Keep
690:Keep
651:Keep
625:Xihr
617:Keep
540:Talk
532:Keep
514:Fram
503:talk
475:Talk
430:Keep
416:talk
371:Keep
362:talk
340:Keep
329:talk
309:some
220:talk
201:Keep
191:talk
168:logs
142:talk
138:edit
55:Neil
940:sau
934:Bur
599:not
572:.--
498:DGG
488:2nd
418:) (
317:•
176:– (
1057:--
943:ce
937:nt
920:|
916:|
912:|
908:|
903:|
899:|
894:|
890:|
829:.
696:.
538:|
505:)
473:|
469:--
436:.
364:)
331:)
222:)
193:)
170:|
166:|
162:|
158:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
52:.
1045:►
1033:◄
924:)
886:(
813:⟲
680:-
669:☢
666:™
581:c
578:/
501:(
422:)
414:(
360:(
327:(
218:(
189:(
180:)
174:)
136:(
60:ム
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.