Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:21, 17 April 2006

Wikitruth.info

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This page has already been speedy deleted twice; however, I'm listing it here because, since it is a site critical of Wikipedia, we should be seen to be transparent in our processes, rather than running the risk of being seen as deleting criticism for it's own sake. Because of the reason for listing here, I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted. By the way: User:Hturtikiw's name is "wikitruth" spelled backwards, and this is their only edit. -- The Anome 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Only one Guardian article seems to mention it - nothing else. Also smells badly of self-advertising. -- Tangot a ngo 12:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, for the time being at least. The site deserves a sentence or two at that page, and an external link, as criticism by admins should be covered on that page. I notice that even external link adding has been reverted. Now its ok to do that for Wikipedia Review which has the occasional really unpleasant "commentary", but the criticism on Wikitruth is legitimate (even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it). The redirect strikes the appropriate balance between notability and transparency. Pcb21 Pete 13:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to make any sense. There is valid criticism of Wikipedia all over the place - nobody is getting censored. Put up the facts and the article stays. Put up blather, and its off to perdition with it. george 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pcb21. The article contains no actual information beyond the link itself. Gwernol 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, lest our zeal to be fair and unbiased in the AfD process cause us to retain an article on a web community that has maybe 5 active users, from what I could tell. If/when it reaches notability it would deserve a mention on Criticism of Wikipedia. GT 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:WEB with one mention, but it is enough for a mention there. Kotepho 19:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GT unless it gets more notable, in which case merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Phr 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia for the time being. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Andy Saund e rs 20:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was included as a WP:POINT ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. It seems rather premature to give this site an individual article, yet it does make valid criticisms which would belong in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Silensor 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miniscule website. It's connection with Wikipedia doesn't make it more article-worthy than it would otherwise be. And the Guardian article was a really crap piece of sloppy journalism. Bhoeble 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Kotepho is quite right, it doesn't yet meet WP:WEB with one mention, but it will likely gain more attention... perhaps eventually it will deserve its own article... but not yet. ALKIVAR™ 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested for the reasons described by Alkivar. --Myles Long 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete merge what's useful into Criticism of Wikipedia and delete the rest. Nortelrye 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete is unacceptable for copyright preservation reasons. Merge/redirect is ok though. Pcb21 Pete 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the consensus were to be merge, delete it could be done within copyright by doing a history merge and deleting the excess redirect. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Urgh I hate those history merges. Another route might be to copy the authorship information to the talk page. Then merge/delete is permissible I suppose. Still prefer redirecting though.

Delete Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) to Criticism of Wikipedia. Or just delete it failing that. Geez, whose vanity article got deleted this time to make us deserve this? They don't seem to tell that on their "FWK" =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the following is a comment about your comment and the state of Wikipedia in general. It is not about whether we should have an article on wikitruth.
- At a minimum there is one admin contributing to that site (they are able to retrieve deleted content). To pass that site off as if it is merely some banned troll having a hissy fit makes us look bad. Rather than shutting our eyes and saying "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU", we should at least consider what they are saying. Maybe they have some sensible ideas for improving Wikipedia and we all want that! Pcb21 Pete 12:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I'm not trying to pass it off as a site probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. I'm trying to pass it off as a site - one that has a Wikipedia admin on board, mind you - that was probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. =) Which is why I'm saying merge, not delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a single cited newspaper article, and no other evidence appearing to meet the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, combined with an Alexa rating of 366,000, 49 unique googles for wikitruth and 128 unique googles for "wiki truth", I would consider deletion. An alternate option mentioned above (which I would support) would be to somehow merge the 'gist' of the information and an external link into the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article. -- Saberwyn 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is going to be relevant or not, but all votes "above the line" were made before the slashdotting. All votes "below the line" were made afterwards. The closing admin should use his/her judgement as to whether this is important.

Delete Why are we even discussing this? This amounts to spam, nothing more. --Gmaxwell 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for now, without prejudice to later recreation if this gets more media attention. Even though as a God-King of Wikipedia (according to wikitruth.info at least), I am certainly not required to give any reasons here, I feel I need to point out that it has now been featured on Slashdot. Sandstein 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - while I generally object to articles about Wikipedia (other than the article Wikipedia]) (hence the weak), this was Slashdotted (hence the keep). So there's kind of a notability claim here. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect - Wikitruth just made Slashdot. It positively meets notability now. --Avillia 19:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - I'd say it is worth keeping around in some form due to it's mention on Slashdot and to undercut griping about censorship and lack of transparency. Just IMHO. Phil 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge , redirect, or delete - Just whatever you do, don't keep, this site isn't nearly as notable as many other sites that we don't have pages on. Cyde Weys 19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's with the "please note that this is not a vote" infobox? This is AfD, we ARE casting votes, and numbers DO count to a certain extent.--inks ^T 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now on slashdot.org as well as newsite. hence notable according to standards 1.a.ii as well as 3 found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28websites%29 . Towsonu2003 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, (3) on WP:WEB is not satisfied - for that to be satisfied, Slashdot would have to actually distribute the content, not just have an article. The only thing I can find that could be classified as (1.a.ii) is an exclusion for trivial media coverage. Are we looking at the same guideline? --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being slashdotted doesn't inherently make something notable. Wikitruth still fails all of the standard WP:WEB metrics that we use, and a single mention on Slashdot isn't going to change those by much. Cyde Weys 21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia for the time being. While the article and attention are not yet substantial enough to warrant an entire article, there is certainly no reason to remove any reference to wikitruth. Isn't Wikipedia founded on the fact that everyone has something legitimate to contribute, something real to say? Even if that means writing about someone else who criticizes it? Rexmorgan 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge at minimum). There is no point whatsoever in having a separate article on every single group of disgruntled Wikipedians who go off in a huff and decide to Stick It To Us by making a website that criticises some aspect of WP. We can always write an article on this website if it ever becomes significant enough to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia, but having been mentioned in one media article and discussed on a few geek websites is not enough for it to qualify. — Haeleth Talk 21:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia. Site was mentioned on Slashdot, somewhat notable, it should have a mention. Spoom - Talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for pure P.R. reasons. The existence of WikiTruth.Info has now been publicized amidst a rather wide exposure of the public. Purposefully deleting an article on it — a site whose very existence is to rescue deleted articles — is horribly bad P.R. And it's good to say that perhaps the site is impervious to P.R., except we've already learned through myriad other actions that it isn't. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A single slashdot article and a Guardian article does not constitute wide exposure per WP:WEB, in my opinion. PR is not a valid reason to keep an article. --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of trying to delete this article because it doesn't meet the arbitrary metrics of an acronym is rich but there are too many articles about things that are only of any real interest to Wikipedians who pay a lot of attention to meta-issues. Delete or worst case merge somewhere suitable. Grace Note 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Articles about Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism should not get special treatment. --Constantine Evans 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 *The irony of trying to delete this article because it doesn't meet the arbitrary metrics of an acronym is rich but there are too many articles about things that are only of any real interest to Wikipedians who pay a lot of attention to meta-issues. '''Delete''' or worst case '''merge''' somewhere suitable. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' - Fails [[WP:WEB]]. Articles about Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism should not get special treatment. --[[User:Constantine Evans|Constantine Evans]] 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
+* '''Merge/Redirect''' into [[Criticism of Wikipedia]]