Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackpotwatch

Quackpotwatch

Non-notable attack site. Site's author has long-running feud with notable site Quackwatch. No mentions of site in the press-- fails WP:WEB. Jokestress 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Plenty of Ghits, but they seem to mostly be attacking (or praising) the subject. I couldn't find any independent "non-trivial published works," signs that it "has won a well known and independent award," or any indication that content is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Not-notable. Also, I'm suspicious of how all but one of the sources cited come from the same place. And all but one of the external links in this article come from the same two people. This seems to be a non-notable feud of narrow scope. Not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect this account to be a sock puppet. I don't know of who, but the users brief edit history clearly shows someone who is not a newbie or unexperienced at Wikipedia rules and regs. -- Stbalbach 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your immediate accusation of the nominator as a sockpuppet simply because they're new smacks of WP:ABF :( Please be civil. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the nominator is a sock puppet. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. The same applies to Scorpiondollprincess (talk · contribs), though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "just because they are new". -- Stbalbach 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, should Quackpotwatch be deleted, some of it will be copied over to Quackwatch under a criticism section, which is where it was originally. Either way there is a place for Quackpotwatch on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to be mentioned on Quackwatch. There are also lots of articles out there about this organization as it is usually mention in the breath following QuackWatch as the watch dog to the watch dogs. Levine2112 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being mentioned on Barrett's website does not qualify Quackpotwatch as notable. If Quackpotwatch has been featured in a major national publication, please provide the references. See WP:RS and WP:WEB for what qualify as reliable sources and notable websites. Jokestress 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and WP:WEB are guidelines, not policy. When it comes to deleting an article there needs to a heavy burden of proof on those who want to delete it. This article has been in existence a long time without complaint, there have been a substantial number of editors who have worked on it (I've personally invested many hours so has at least one other person), the website is well known (I could post google hit stats), and most importantly, the content of this website is *controversial* and there is always the concern of bias from those who wish to delete it. All these specific issues, in my mind, should be weighed in with the generic guidelines cited. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you need an official policy, see WP:BLP. This page contains defamatory statements about Barrett's credentials, among other things. None of these are properly sourced per Wikipedia policy. Jokestress 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the article. You mis-using AfD, AfD is not the place to air content disputes. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point of the nomination. The entire site has failed to establish notability. It does not appear to qualify as a reliable source or merit an article, per guidelines and policies. Jokestress 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator Jokestress has this on her page -- Stbalbach 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also run several websites on consumer issues, and I am a proud affiliate of Quackwatch.

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. The existence of a feud (I'm loathe to call this a "controversy") does not necessarily make a website notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing presented that indicates this website meets WP inclusion guidelines. The material in this article can be placed in the Bolen or Quackwatch articles. Gamaliel 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a fork of Quackwatch. Before including any of this back there, we need evidence that it has some kind of authority. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as an independent article or included in a criticism section on Quackwatch. Fred Bauder 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the data in either this article or as a subsection at Quackwatch. WAS 4.250 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Quackwatch.--Eloquence * 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB, We don't need another article on some whackjob conspiracy site. --mboverload @ 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB as well as being a fork from quackwatch. Would be better to merge some of it back into quackwatch page. David D. (Talk) 04:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that this is an 'attack site' or that the site's owner has been in a long running feud with another site's owner has nothing to do with whether or not this is an article we want to keep. Stanfordandson 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]