Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarah smiling again (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 30 June 2006 (→‎[[What Really Happened]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What Really Happened

What Really Happened was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/What Really Happened.

This website is not that notable and should not be included in an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of every website on the planet. Google and yahoo searches only came up when using Site name or several of the varaions (such has what happened or Really happened ect.) Aeon 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you realize that you are nominating this site almost exactly one month after it was nominated for deletion on the same grounds of it allegedly being non-notable. I further hope you realize the human resources that get tied up in a process like this that could otherwise be spent in productive editing and expansion of Wikipedia. I wonder if there are any instruments implemented to annul these types of AfD nominations that in my opinion are frivolous. __meco 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain, Aeon1006, how and why you think that this web site does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. "This website is not that notable" is not sufficient by itself. How, specifically, does the website fail to satisfy the criteria? Uncle G 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it necessary to quote from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations (my highlighting):
    In general, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations.
  • Does Aeon1006 feel that the previous deletion process suffered from a marked lack of contributors? __meco 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speed for Aeon, but the previous AfD was closed as No consensus. And this isn't an immediate renomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus means the article survived anyway. And, how many articles' nomination for deletion happens twice in 30 days? --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain because I feel that this article should not have been renominated so quickly from my initial nomination. I was planning on a renom in a few months when I had a better argument. --Strothra 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I certainly can't speak for Aeon and I don't really accept non-notable as a reason for deletion, but looking through the first AfD I don't see how What Really Happened meets any of the WP:WEB criteria. There was an attempt to justify it per WP:WEB#2, but those awards are very minor "site of the day" type awards. In my opinion they don't qualify per #2. There also was an attempt to justify it per WP:WEB#1 essentially arguing that WRH met the criteria per 11 published interviews. Unfortunately, these interviews were bittorrent, Google Video, and Alex Jones' prisonplanet website. None of these qualify as non-trivial. 3 more NewsMax cites were added, but none of these articles were about WRH, they were either mentioned in passing or linked at the end of the article. Obviously this was no consensus upon closing, so opinion was split, but I personally see no credible evidence or argument provided that this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a far better rationale than the one given in the nomination. Thank you. Uncle G 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence is currently provided that the site meets WP:WEB. Article is also very POV as it stands, although I accept that's not grounds for deletion. Tevildo 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to above I have been trying to reply for a few minutes but have been unable to due to about a half dozen edit conflicts. In review of WP:WEB I found I was in error. Thank you Uncle G for pointing this out to me. And is response to the AFD renom I thought a month was enough time to renom. If this is also in error then please let me know so I can avoid making that mistake again. Aeon 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's in poor judgment, and, as you can read in the quote above, it actually violates the criteria for hasty renomination. Consider that last time this article was up for deletion a huge number of people spent their time (the entire debate actually made up 97kb) on it, and now you're asking all of them to repeat that exercise. __meco 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to Aeon, it only violates your reading of the criteria meco based on the bolded text above. It specifically states that there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations... which essentially leaves it open to interpretation by individual editors. There is no violation here, just a difference in opinion as to what constitutes an immediate renomination. As for the effort an AfD takes, the previous AfD is linked so hopefully editors participating can read through the article, the previous AfD, and arguments here before rendering a well-thought out opinion. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate about an article's merits, particularly when the previous AfD ended without consensus being reached.--Isotope23 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this nomination clearly violates the criteria for an immediate renomination. I will concede the opinion that it is valid if some will argue that it is NOT an immediate renomination, which I consider it to be. __meco 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough... nothing wrong with a difference of opinion!--Isotope23 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes fair enough, And it was my interpretation on the Deletion Policy, perhaps there should be an review of the renom part of the policy to address this issue so it doesn't come up again. But that is a topic for a differnt discussion. Aeon 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(Halbared 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. We need to either change the criteria or follow it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any opinion with regards to changing criteria? __meco 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. I appreciate Meco's concern for my use of time. Tychocat 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOV and fails WP:WEB (Alexa ranking of 10,711, but the site doesn't seem to have won any notable awards). Most blogs aren't notable enough for inclusion here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article itself does not fail WP:NPOV, and has been markedly improved, particularly with regards to references, since the most recent AfD vote. I suspect bias against the site and its content is playing a role here; the site is notable. Earpol 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you in that the site is notable. However, the question of whether Wikipedia's criteria are capable of establishing this remains. The problem might lie with Wikipedia's current set of criteria. __meco 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Fact: Google Test results in about 387,000 references for WhatReallyHappened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.186.218 (talk • contribs) 01:21, June 30, 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact that I and many many more people visit WRH (intentionally, as opposed to redirect or Googling) - AND, after clicking on so many of the links (in the Wikipedia site) under the heading of WRH, it appears to me that WRH is actually much more "Notable" than this site with all the psuedo intellectual arguing about the nuances of the criteria for "notability" and deletion - AND, that, just like so many other things in Wikipedia (which really Could be a good idea, IF there were ANY control over the FACTUALNESS of the information - AND a restriction of the ability of axe-grinders and special interests, i.e., Zionists, as an excellent example, (and other people who have Obviously never even bothered to actually look up the dictionary or encyclopedic definition of the word "Semite" in ALL it's meanings!) to just jump in and edit and erase whatever they simply don't like. SO, it is my opinion that WRH deserves to be in this compilation of accurate - and inaccurate - information website just as much as "Wikipedia" itself does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.235.6.178 (talk • contribs) 01:42, June 30, 2006 (UTC).
  • support, keep: whatreallyhappened is a regular daily source of information and deserves to be kept in WikipediaMirrorsoul 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is ridiculous, renominating articles for deletion at the drop of a hat every month or so, and besides WRH is very notable site well known and frequently linked to. It may annoy some here who don't like the site, but well bang I don't like the US government either, so maybe we should nominate that article for deletion too??? KEEP. Of course. 61.205.97.120 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Aaron[reply]
  • This website, while a bit focused on Israel, which is the reason why some people want to have it deleted, is just a set of links to very informative news articles. It is and has been a key resource for researchers. To delete it from Wikipedia is pure politics and frankly, silly.[End]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.71.69 (talk • contribs) 02:00, June 30, 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, It seems obvious to me that a political bias motivates some who want to delete this site, else why the harping and bitching about it? "What Really Happened" provides access to controversial issues, many contemporary and some within the past several years. This is not the type of site that the Wikipedia should suppress.24.1.11.49 02:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time it might be prudent to take note of the fact that information about this second nomination of What Really Happened was posted on whatreallyhappened.com at 01:05 (UTC) under the headline "Wikipedia tries to delete What Really Happened a second time" linking directly to this page, and with additional text:

    Despite the previous public response, Wikipedia is once again trying to move the article on What Really Happened towards deletion. Winston Smith, call your office.

    __meco 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What in the world is wrong with Wikipedia? Have you folks gone mad? I suggest that perhaps it is Wikipedia that is non relevent, if you are too small for the likes of WRH. I have visited WRH for years, and have learned so much. Basically the site posts news - and truth. but I have to wonder about Wikipedia, are you trying to re-write history? KEEP. § joyce 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Though I do sympathize with the frustration felt by avid readers of What Really Happened. I would like to express my take on the reason why this is happening (again) which I believe is threefold: 1) It is true that the article about What Really Happened lacks credible sources that would testify to the notability of the site to "someone who isn't acquainted with the site", i.e. most Wikipedia contributors. 2) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of a web site (which can be read at WP:WEB) may in fact be deficient and in need of revision. 3) True, What Really Happened is shunned by most mainstream outlets which leads to it not getting the publicity other sites would have received all things being equal. Apart from that, while I have your attention, I might entice you to read Wikipedia's quite good article about conspiracy theory and urge all that come here basically to fight the nomination for deletion to become active contributors to the Wikipedia project. __meco 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. whatreallyhappened has some original content as well as being a collection of the current batch of links pertinent to the views of the site editor. It is the "Go-To" place for updates on the unprecidented changes taking place in the American way of life that the neo-conservatives, and likely the fanatic zionists are bringing about. The Dog that Did not Bark, and The Crime of the Century are just two pieces of original content on the site. Have you read them? You'll have to read 1984 to know who Winston Smith is.--112358 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a silly politically motivated call for deletion. Wikipedia has links to many similar political commentary web sites: frontpagemag.com, discoverthenetworks.org, antiwar.com. Many many such sites are documented - because they exist out there in the world and are relevant. This is part of a concerted effort by zionists and their supporters to have wikipedia reflect their POV. Its part of a project to remove not only whatreallyhappened, but also a whole list of similar anti-zionist political commentary web sites. --rafael
  • Keep Even though there was no consensus, and the last keep was a default keep, I still feel enough unique people contributed to the last discussion that we should not open this up again. 24.54.83.216 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may choose to do as you will but the truth is zionism is losing its battle to suppress and obscure the truth. Wikipedia is the last place I would visit to obtain investagatory information on ANY subject. This site is no different than the textbooks used in American schools. Superficial, skewed and absolutely biased. Sorta like Dragnet with a twist, "History has beed altered to protect the guity", but not for much longer. As an educator I can assure you that the students that go through my class are given perspective, depth, and content in order to FULLY educate them as to the events that are taking place around them.~ksdrover~
  • KEEP– This page is a relly good source of information, news that you can't see in any other MSM outlet, so it keep your info in balance. Unique and controversial. Franco17 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WhatReallyHappened in Wikipedia.

WhatReallyHappened is within WP:NPOV, because it is essentially a news service website which happens to include short descriptions of the meaning of the news articles linked to in the opinion of the site administrator. Like any website, there is an option for reader comments, however this option clearly isn't the primary focus of the site in form or function. The readers comments section, a tiny link on the left hand column, has no flash and little color. Obviously the administrator doesn't consider reader comments the primary focus of his site, and the reader cannot mistake the site for that purpose. WhatReallyHappened is not "blog-like" because the primary highlighted information, prominently displayed throughout the majority and in the center of home page, is composed of links chosen by the site administrator which are not found in the mainstream media, which is the stated and obvious purpose of the site: provide links to articles and information not found in the mainstream media, along with original content and characterizations of the external information by the site administrator, which the reader is free to reject or accept in relation to the article or information presented.

When a member of the mainstream media scoops another publication, that particular media wishes to present information not found in the other media. By consistently highlighting articles not typically found in what is considered the mainstream media, WhatReallyHappened consistently scoops that media, or any other media not reflecting the information. Further, if Free Republic isn't deleted for failure to adhere WP:NPOV, logically it isn't possible to delete WhatReallyHappened for failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, because no website violates WP:NPOV like Free Republic, and Free Republic is decisively "blog-like".

Next, the primary purpose of WhatReallyHappened as a significant source of unusual news links significantly disables much application of WP:WEB, because the guts of WP:WEB largely depend upon definitions fulfilled by the same media WhatReallyHappened is not designed to represent. What would the charge of the Web be then, if WhatReallyHappened were represented in claimed "reliable" media, that WhatReallyHappened is a mainstream puppet? Reliable media like The Nation or Mother Jones magazines aren't referred to in most media, heck, the Congressional Budget Office isn't even represented properly, with its accurate numbers prepared by dutiful civil servants held up in comparison to politically motivated numbers provided by private companies like the Heritage Foundation.

Yes, the move for renomination for deletion is in violation of standards of reasonableness in relation to not allowing immediate renomination. It isn't really arguable except on hypertechnical grounds, the next afternoon after the previous nomination for deletion failed could be said not to be immediate, if one wants to be hypertechnical. To a reasonable person there is obviously a campaign to remove WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, and, to a reasonable person, the nomination for deletion is itself in violation of WP:NPOV because of that campaign, once a reasonable person has reached the conclusion that the renomination violates the immediacy rule. The criteria for renomination for deletion should be that some change has occurred in relation to WhatReallyHappened since the last discussion for deletion which qualifies for another motion for deletion. We're entitled to hear what new information has come to light since the last discussion which qualifies WhatReallyHappened for a new motion for deletion.

WhatReallyHappened is a notable website, first for many references to its data in other well known and established websites, like Counterpunch, which credits WhatReallyHappened with good "detective work", because of the "11 published interviews" a detractor here tried to minimize, and because awards like "Site of the Day" is a criteria the Web uses to rate other sites. Would Wikipedia turn a "Site of the Day" award down? And why does Robert-Fisk.com bother with WhatReallyHappened, surely Robert Fisk is notable and reliable, risking his life in Iraq and Lebanon? Why did Wikipedia fail to delete WhatReallyHappened the last nomination, if it wasn't notable in the earlier determination? I don't see how, if the matter was a split decision, this split decision is anything but a failure to prove WhatReallyHappened isn't notable, it clearly was a failure to prove that, and there's no new information to say that WhatReallyHappened isn't notable. There is, however, new information that WhatReallyHappened is notable, in addition to the earlier failure to delete it as non-notable, because another nomination for deletion has occurred within a month of the last effort to delete WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, when no new information has arisen in the meantime to cause this nomination for deletion. That is notable in relation to WhatReallyHappened, and it has happened because WhatReallyHappened is a notable website which draws such attention.

Roukan 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and ENSURE a neutral point of view

O.k., this is REALLY starting to get out of hand... Wikipedia should do everything that is humanly possible to make certain that no one-sided, or unprofessional views are permitted. Having said that, these constant nominations for deletion are nothing more than malicious attempts to supress valuable information.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Rivero, (and/or his website), is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this website. Wikipedia was designed to allow a wealth of information to be contributed from all kinds of people, from all walks of life, from all political or religious affiliations, and from every corner of the globe. Does whatreallyhappened.com present a professional NPOV? Of course not. :P But the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE' on it DOES, (or at least, should).

If we start deleting articles about websites, or cult movements simply because we don't agree with them; and/or because they might offend certain groups of people, where does that inevitably lead? Would we have to delete articles on rival political parties? Would we have to delete the article on "Red Magen David" because it offends Muslims?, the article on "Huckleberry Finn" because it offends Americans of African descent?, or perhaps the article on the "Spanish Inquisition" because a recent revelation that Tomas Torquemada was a converted Jew might offend people of that particular faith? Seriously, at what point do we draw the line?

The reality is that there IS a site called whatreallyhappened.com . The only adequate reason for deleting this article would be said website NEVER EXISTED, and is just somebody's idea of a joke.

As a fountain of information, Wikipedia should do everything possible to give all people the right to speak their minds, so long as they do so in a professional way, and expressing a neutral point of view, when writing a fair and balanced article. Pine 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MMIE: Wikipedia is a place for knowledge , not editorial bias. Editors need to keep their politics to themselves.
  • Oh, yes, it's political, we're all screaming righties trying to get one barely notable site deleted. Weak keep for barely enough notability to make it, just like I voted last time. Despite the HWFO. Folks? Orwellian references are really counterproductive and just make you look silly, especially considering the nomination comes from a single editor, not Wikipedia itself. Tony Fox (speak) 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again..please keep this entry. It is a good web site...just because it is not pro isreal does not make it antisemetic...honesty this is just very silly
  • Strong Delete as fails WP:WEB and the article doesn't establish notability for why the subject/website should be included in Wikipedia. TheJC TalkContributions 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: A second time for deletion one month later? Get real. This is clearly politics and attempted censorship. Someone is trying to delete it because it's one of the top and most popular alternative news sites on the internet - that, by definition, makes it important and worthy of inclusion. It's also very controversial - that also makes it important and worthy of inclusion, and actually worthy of having an article with a neutral point of view. (Which so far the incorrect article has not been neutral being repeatedly reset to incorrect information.)

The real reason the site is being targeted is because it combines three dangerous things: controversial politics, disturbing truth (presented in the form of directly linked verifyable media reports, many of them mainstream, but under reported), and popularity. This is causing abusive interpretations of the rules hoping to cause it to go away by attacking those which link to it. Admittedly the opinions of the site owner border on abusive hate speech and anti semitism at times lashing out with cynicism and outrage, but it primarily serves as a link page to suppressed or nontrivial articles in mainstream or alternative media even for people who do not agree with the political feelings of the site owner.

I do not like or believe the opinions of the author, but I believe censoring the article about him would only prove his claims right all that much more. I read it to find under represented news. Both the WRH site itself and the article here on it could use some clean up, but they absolutely need to be in Wikipedia if you dont want to have a huge gaping hole which is painfully obvious because there is no article there. Deleting it would be dangerous and very counterproductive, showing Wikipedia to be a compromised and nontrustable reference source from now on.

My opinion of Wikipedia has dropped to about a quarter of what it was a month ago for even seeing this. The first call for deletion didnt really surprise me, actually falling for the second so soon again is approaching absurd. I've written articles for Wikipedia in the past, but I will not waste my time on it in the future if it is turned into yet another personal whipping boy due to threats forcing it into a political viewpoint. I will not waste my money on more donations either if it simply kowtows to a shortsighted minority trying to bully others into accepting their point of view.


Lets just be honest and say it all out in the open. Quit pretending that Wikipedia or certain people within Wikipedia are not being pressured in some abusive manner to try and quietly make the article and links go away. Stop the selectively overzealous interpretation of the rules on political grounds and let the truth stand for itself. Wikipedia's reputation has already been tarnished over this, I never even suspected rumors that other articles had been politically censored until WRH came up TWICE in this short of time. If the deletion goes through or ever comes up again it will just prove everyone right and other support may well flock away in droves after seeing the smoking gun of censorship.

To those saying the site is barely notable, how do you call 4-6 million page views per day of nothing other than hardcore news non notable? Considering the level of controversy and strength of opinions about it? 84.9.109.10 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: border added to demarcate entire comment. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site is definitely notable. The rapid renomination provides evidence of this. Orwellian may be an axaggeration, but McCarthyism isn't. One must question whether the nominator has a political agenda.
  • Comment Can people adding comments please sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) and also please address the problems Isotope23 has highlighted that the article has (namely failing inclusion criteria per WP:WEB)? This AfD is related to the article in its present state. The site may be notable, however it fails to establish notablity (see: WP:VERIFY). Please also try to keep comments short, and avoid breaking policies such as WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA. Thanks, TheJC (talk • contribs • count) 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and let me add that new contributors should read WP:AGF as well before spouting off completely unsubstantiated "suspicions" that this nomination was somehow politically motivated. There is no evidence that is the case and a quick scan of the nominator's edit history shows no reason to believe he/she has any political bias here.--Isotope23 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with THAT suggestion. First law of Wikipedia deletions: Any alleged "the truth the government doesn't want you to see" site + AFD = heaps of meatpuppets. Tony Fox (speak) 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This site generates a lot of traffic and it has interesting information and a long history. (longer than Wikipedia, as it happens.) I suspect the call for deletion was motiviated by the caller's political point of view. WhatReallyHappened.com is one of the few websites which represents conservatives who don't neccesarily support the current US government. Keep. 202.89.180.58 07:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader[reply]
  • Keep SDC 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep .... Haven't we done all this debate before? Bob Loblaw 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do we have to go through this rigmarole again? Wikipedia is getting ruined by biased deletion attempts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.100.130 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. What Really Happened is a very good known Independant Information Source. --Ko de Dok (User:83.162.17.74) 08:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING TOO, NOW OUR T.V MASTERS HAVE TO WORK IN THE [ONLINE PLAYING FIELD]. THERE ARE MORE DECENT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EVERYDAY BECAUSE OF THE NET, AND IT'S ALL FALLING APART FOR THE "T.V GENERATION", HOW SAD, DELETE IT AND WIKIPEDIA WILL BECOME IRELLIVANT, SORRY WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I keep reading here how Wikipedia is... a) conspiring against WRH b) doomed to be irrelevant if the WRH article is deleted c) a younger, less popular website than WRH etc. It seems like WP is really an inferior site. I'd think it'd be best for WRH fans to concur with deletion and be rid of this mar on their site. Since there's apparently nothing good about Wikipedia, I can't imagine why a group would fight so hard to be associated with it. GassyGuy 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really believe there are WRH "fans" as such I think that every "thinking" individual is a "fan" of independence and alternative sides of the story, because that's what thinking is all about isn't it, making your own decision. now when wikipedia or people inside wikipedia appear to be trying to stop such independent sites from propagating like say...... [putting it up for deletion a second time in less than a month] people get angry, understand? The point of the comment above is to address the fact that when a human is faced with a choice between a distortion or an obvious lie, and the alternative they will take the alternative, if wikipedia chooses to knowingly digress from alternatives to the "T.V generation" propaganda then it in it's self will doom it's self to second class cheapness, just through the simple principals of the market system and competition. this is a cold hard fact, there will be in the future and already is other online free encyclopedia's if they have more [of all] information and wikipedia keeps "towing the line" then wikipedia will be known as the [fox encyclopedia] of the net.

    if you care about wikipedia GassyGuy don't let it happen.
  • Comment I suggest to delete Wikipedia. That'd do it.
  • Keep nothing changed in WRH since last time we discussed it, so a deletion would now harm wikipedia and promote WRH as a victim. --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep it. One of the few sources of reliable and unbiased news on the Internet.
  • All the verbiage is bogus. This is all about censorship plain and simple. There is an information war going on! The truth is rare and many want to squelch it. If anyone doubts Wikipedia's political agenda I refer you to the history of their AIPAC entry, which is now resolved (into a mere 75% lies).
  • Keep. WhatReallyHappened.com has kept me sane in trying to understand international affairs for the last eight years or so. More than any other website I value it's daily collection of news and commentary. Yes it posts links to articles that are critical of the US and Israeli Administrations. But when you consider the evidence from an intelligent non-imperialist perspective then the criticism is warranted. What really happened with 911? Does anyone still believe that airliners and jet fuel brought down and pulverised three massively sturdy WTC buildings on 911? Burning kerosene cannot melt steel!! Does this tragedy justify invading two sovereign countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians? More recently, who really believes that the IDF's shoot and burn policy in Gaza is a reasonable response to one captured POW soldier? The Israeli Administration just cannot accept that the Palestinian people would vote for a Hamas led democratic government.
  • If you follow WhatReallyHappened.com you see the reports day to day from world media that illuminate what is really going on. Unless Wikipedia editors want to distinguish themselves as guardians of Anglo-Zionist propaganda, there is no reason to delete WhatReallyHappened.com. It is a veteran giant among the alternative Internet media sources.
  • Before you decide the value of the website, try following the stories for a few weeks and look into the archives. You may find that you gradually come to understand a great deal more about how the world really works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.139.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It's the same as the drudge report, only with more commentary, and not as politically correct :-) . Was very instrumental in showing the scope of the anti-war movement that was suppressed by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.111.68 (talk • contribs)
  • "KEEP IT" good stuff. mainstream media is industry driven,flitered garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Tried to format the AfD entry so it is marginally readable. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WhatReallyHappened is one of the leading news and opinion aggregation web sites on the Internet. If you administrators who are, in effect, the policy makers at Wikipedia intend to provide yet another clear example of how Wikipedia is little more than a biased, agenda-driven web site disguised as a repository of knowledge, then go ahead and delete the WhatReallyHappened entry. After you do that then you'll spend the indefinite future in what can only be a futile pursuit, trying to convince the world that deleting content aggregation web sites whose content you sometimes do not approve of is not censorship. GeneMosher 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm pretty sure we decided this issue last month. Immediately re-nominating something for deletion is grounds for it to be an automatic keep I believe. I'm sure if the people interested in deleting this article keep nominating it, sooner or later they will succeed. However, there is no clear reason to delete this article, which is generally factual and a reference (I have no idea if the actual site is factual or not, I'm only speaking about the article on wikipedia). There is an article for homestar runner for christ's sake. Ltbarcly 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I was unaware of this site until I read this AfD nomination, and I don't care about US and Israeli/Palestinian politics, so here's a few comments from a disinterested party. I don't see this nomination filled with rampant meatpuppetry, vandalism, and screams of bias going anywhere. This nomination is bound to end up again as a no-consensus. Suggestions for the article: edit out a lot of the unencyclopedic sections (eg. the sprawling list of "quirks"). Compare: Talking Points Memo, a site that surely beats WRH in terms of WP's notability criteria for web-sites, is both smaller and more concise than What Really Happened. –Dicty (T/C) 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, Talking Point Memo doesn't seem to be any more or less significant than WRH.COM. 202.89.180.58 12:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader[reply]
    You missed my point. I said nothing about significance, which is impossible to determine, but about notability, for which we have criteria. –Dicty (T/C) 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the thoroughly malicious nature of the meatpuppetry and vandalism that has been going on, I have exhausted my store of good faith about the denizens of WRH. I have removed my keep vote. Others have made good points that this site does not meet WP:WEB. –Dicty (T/C) 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. . I don't know what more to say that hasn't already been said. Let me try and just reinforce what seems to be the common idea:
    1. Grounds for non notability? Seems like alot of people are fighting for it...
    2. This site and its listing here is VERY important if only as an example that there is truth out there and someone needs to show it in the light. For those of you who REFUSE to look at the deeper things, the VERY REAL things that make this world go round then I feel very sad for you and angry at the same time because you are part of the problem.
    3. Yes nominating this listing to be deleted in such a short time very much sounds like a personal attack. It reminds me of a spoiled child demanding they get their way. Again...very sad. I can only begin to imagine what your political, personal and religious affiliations are.
    4. Perhaps some of you think this is a conspiracy site. Let me say this. Even conspiracy theories and general stereotypes have roots in truth. Compare WRH to what can be said (no matter how very informative it is) to be a conspiracy site: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/wake_up_america.html
    5. My personal opinion is that the world and particularly the United States is on fire and we are living in unprecedented times. Things have not been this bad, turbulent and corrupt since the collapse of the Roman empire. To add more to it by what really does look like censorship is a real shame. If you want to make a site molded in your opinion then why did you create an encyclopedia site?
      12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) void
  • comment We will be standing with the people of wikipedia and aeon until their hopes for freedom and liberty are fulfilled.heil aeon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 08:17:16 (UTC)
  • Comment The comment from 83.117.111.61 aside Isotope made an interesting point. No one seems to have said why it shoulod be kept per WP:WEB Aeon 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is memory space so tight that these editorial decisions are necessary? If so, I note that wikipedia has an article on the Pennsic War -- which I attend regularly, but which I consider so far less "notable" than a massive, and heavily-trafficked, link to important news stories of the world, as to make it ludicrous to include the fantasy "war" in the face of "tight" memory allocation, instead of the news site. "Notable"? Good grief. Maybe your guidelines for inclusion do need reexamined. Exactly who or what is burdened by the presence of a whatreallyhappened article?--Mellyrn 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)mellyrn[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Also, the fact that the site itself is campaigning for meatpuppets to comment in this discussion seems to impeach any serious claim of notability of the site. KWH 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't like many of the opinions expressed on that website, but it's still very notable because for many many people it's the best political news aggregator. I also don't like that controversial articles get bombed with deletion requests. The former request already had lots of contributors --Enric Naval 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Hey, shouldn't Fark be up for deletion on the same grounds? They are both just sites that have some kind of, uh, links or something on them. I say, if a page has this much controversy, then it must be notable!24.130.196.236 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Really happened is one of the most important sites on the Web, bar none. It's no secret that people with an Agenda like AIPAC would like it to go away, and it's also no secret that the Wikipedia editors sympathize with this point of view. You either believe in free speech and independent media, or you don't. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.106.34 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:31:46 (UTC)
  • DELETE? THIS IS A QUESTION NOT EVEN TO BE UTTERED IN A FREE KNOWLEDGE FORUM Has Wikipedia forgot its roots? Has it gone the way of free-speech universities and tolerance? Do we really need another fascist summer followed by a dark winter? As I have mentioned in the past, numerous misdeeds (Abu Ghraib, Downing Street Memos, the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, etc.) by the American - and occasionally British - government were exposed months and sometimes YEARS before the "free & independent" mainstream media would touch it. The stench in here's getting pretty bad. I must depart to clearer skies.67.153.236.172 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! If you care about the 'news behind the news' and the truth behind the lies, you should check out WRH daily!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:40:38 (UTC)
  • KEEP - it's scary that it's even a question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colinhoho (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:43:26 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--The Brain 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been postponing my decision on this. During the previous AfD I was strongly opposed to deleting the article. At that point I had not read WP:WEB, like *very* many of the "meatpuppet" people here now obviously haven't either. And like them I was moved by a moral imperative that told me that this site is important and if it is deleted then something must be very wrong somewhere. I now have come to realize that the article doesn't conform to Wikipedia's quality standards which apply equally to all articles, and I particularly make a note of the fact that in the month that has passed since the previous nomination the issue that was raised then has not been addressed in earnest fashion. I also would like to comment that unsubstantiated accusations that "the Wikipedia editors" are out to get "What Really Happens" are immature generalizations. I for one believe that it is possible to find both that WRH is an interesting and important website and that this website unfortunately doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards without particularly suspecting that this is simplistically linked with the ubiquitous tentacles of the NWO machinating the Wikipedia voluntary organization. __meco 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold textKeep, Bold textContinue, and Bold textStop Polarazing Discussion - Wikipedia is designed to be an online encyclopedia available to all for editing and reading. To choose to no longer list a page due to political slant is contrary to that motto. If an encyclopedia wishes to gain credence through a large source of truthful public information, that information needs to reflect the public. The fact that we are even having this polarazing discussion points to that wikipedia is loosing its focus on expanding the world knowledge encumbered by political manipulation.

Bottom Line: Facts are facts. WRH exists, it's a real website and voice of an important perspective. It should therefore be kept and continued in the worlds freest and largest encyclopedia. --12.161.155.144 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Private Citizen Z[reply]

Repaired a major blanking, and moved the above comment from the top of the discussion to the bottom. Where it's supposed to be, people. Thank you. Tony Fox (speak) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- The site served its readers well in providing links to contextual background information on the "War on Terror" and the relentless PR campaign that led up to the Iraq invasion, something the mainstream media, for whatever reason, did not do. WRH has also linked to countless articles which purported to document anomalies in the events and official narrative of 9/11- another potentially fertile subject in which the mainstream media has shown no interest. WRH is a very notable alternative news site for those who wish to "question everything", and is a threat to those who are afraid of out-of-consensus viewpoints, even if, or perhaps especially if, those viewpoints are closer to the truth than the conventional wisdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isayoldchap (talk • contribs)

Comment - If the sire were NOT relevant, there surely would NOT be this much ink (or electrons) flowing about it. Controversial it may be, but it is sometimes a little light in fairly thick fog !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.164.77 (talk • contribs)


KEEP WRH: ZIONIST CYBERHITMEN WHO ZERO IN ON EVERY ARTICLE OR WEBSITE THAT COMMENTS NEGATIVELY ON ISRAEL SHOULD NOT BE COUNTENANCED--THOMAS KEYES— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas keyes (talk • contribs)

  • KEEP - Of course, I'd argue "keep," this entry. Right now, however, I'm not even sure it's worthwhile to debate this argument of whether "What Really Happened" should be kept on Wikipedia anymore. I suggest this because I believe that this problem truly originates in Wikipedia's flawed notability policy which needs objectivity, transparency, and oversight.

To me, notability is extremely tricky; for, it suggests that there are gatekeepers of culture who decide what is popular. Who are the people that determine what is "notable?" Is it the media, the intelligensia, those with power, or the masses? Is popularity determined by an individual, cultural, local, nation or international spheres? Is it indicated if it's pop culture or historical? Is it determined by one's known professional knowledge? Is it determined by one's individual taste or preference?

Although one may argue that the above classifications are valid ways to determine notability, I still believe that it is flawed because there is no objectivity. Almost anyone can nominate a site for deletion on Wikipedia, and therein lies the problem. What one person determines as "notable" may not be "notable" to another person, especially if an individual has not had contact, exposure to, or prior knowledge of the subject or article being nominated for deletion. For example, there are plenty authors, such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Gloria Naylor, or Ursula Hegi, that I am sure that quite a few people on this site have not read, are familiar with, or have heard about. Does this make these individuals non-notable because they are not known to an individual editor or Wikipedian member? They are not "notable" to these editors, but they may be known to a person who is familiar with world literature. What if a person doesn't know about a philosopher like Charles S. Peirce -- one of the founders of American pragmatism? If a person hasn't studied or isn't interested in philosophy, does this make Peirce non notable? I have had this experience myself, where articles I've written -- not so well known to some in American culture, have been nominated for deletion less than a minute after their initial creation -- without the Wikipedian editor taking the time to research, let alone taking the mere five seconds one would need to check Google's search engine to determine if a subject had prior media coverage or newsworthiness.

Another flaw in Wikipedia's notability policy is that there is little transparency. What if a person, organization, or institution has a dislike of a certain subject's inclusion in this "wiki" and wishes to have it removed from the public sphere to stiffle knowledge and to silence debate. One can easily cite Wikipedia's "notability" clause as a specious argument for an article's removal. I would argue that a similar phenomena is already exists and is rampant in corporate-controlled media where international and national news stories are shelved to prevent damage to their bottom-line.

My last argument is there is little oversight. I would have no problem if a page was deleted based on something quantifiable: Wikipedia has not instituted anything measurable in this regard. And, yes, there are ways to determine an entry's popularity - - statistics. Blog sites do this all the time. When I oversaw certain websites, I used free programs like | AXS Visitor Tracking that could do tracking. And even CPANEL has programs that can give individual statistics on which pages get the most traffic. Anyway, that's my two cents.

And lastly, I really object to Wikipedia's use of "meatpuppetry" and the like. It just sounds childish and meanspirited, in my opinion. They have the right to their opinions, if they feel strongly about a subject, just as you do. American culture has sunk to the level of labelling or slandering groups of people, ideas, and/or subjects. As a result serious topics or debates are reduced to the mere superficial. Sarah smiling again 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Really_Happened_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=61392998"