Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Wilderness: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:16, 3 June 2006

From The Wilderness

Delete and merge with Michael Ruppert Behold! another one of wikipedia's non notable publications which seems to make no assertion at all to notability. Strothra 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep certanly notable in its own context. --Striver 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outlandish as it may be, this website is well-known and deserves an entry, even if it is a notorious conspiracy theory page.--Cberlet 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an important web site and often cited reference. __meco 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Granted, those works should be cited on the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible merge with Michael Ruppert. Again, the nom needs to better examine existing coverage before nominating on AfD. -- JJay 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I go with what the article gives me. If it violates, WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, I nominate it. I don't rely on outside resources, just what's in the article. If it's not encyclopedic and if that fact isn't supported by references, citations, and firm research then it's junk. --Strothra 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand that, and I don't doubt that Strothra nominated it in good faith. It looks like any other knot of conspiracist cruft, this one just happens to have been discussed by some reputable people. The page as it was didn't demonstrate that - I added a cite to David Corn's article. I think after the AfD closes, a merge with Michael Ruppert should be considered. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, thank you. Apparently my standards for inclusion are a little too high for some in the community and I will admit that. I just feel that the backbone to a good encyclopedia is strong research and well cited evidence. I changed my nom to delete and merge as I do agree with the merge.--Strothra 02:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - DEFINATELY DESRVES OWN ENTRY SEPERATE FROM RUPPERT'S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.81.88 (talk • contribs)

Keep. as per Tom Harrison. —optikos 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unimportant and unencyclopedic. We already have a Michael Ruppert article. His newsletter deserves a once-sentence mention in that article, not its own article. KleenupKrew 23:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Site notable: Book summarising site content on 9/11 ('Crossing the Rubicon") in Harvard Baker Library (Business) and non-fiction bestseller. Information verifiable, rare resource. Research articles by date: claim of being a year ahead verifiable.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep'''.  as per Tom Harrison. —[[User:Optikos|optikos]] 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''.  Unimportant and unencyclopedic.  We already have a [[Michael Ruppert]] article.  His newsletter deserves a once-sentence mention in that article, not its own article. [[User:KleenupKrew|KleenupKrew]] 23:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-*""Strong Keep"". Site notable: Book summarising site content on 9/11 ('Crossing the Rubicon") in Harvard Baker Library (Business) and non-fiction bestseller. Information verifiable, rare resource. Research articles by date: claim of being a year ahead verifiable.
+*'''Strong Keep'''. Site notable: Book summarising site content on 9/11 ('Crossing the Rubicon") in Harvard Baker Library (Business) and non-fiction bestseller. Information verifiable, rare resource. Research articles by date: claim of being a year ahead verifiable.