User:Largoplazo/NCCL-DWCMP

I was looking at this page and several others others related to it (referred to in the text of "NCCL-DWCMP" or related articles) and this appears to be a rather serious case of cyber-stalking. Calling something a hoax without researching it is certainly not objective, does indeed point to racism or other prejudice, and if it is in keeping with the rules of Wikipedia then you cannot reach your stated objective and should close your doors now...why is an environment where some contributors do what they can to chase out new people with other information and experiences being promoted? The fact that anyone can accuse anyone they like of "vandalism" or writing an ad or perpetrating a hoax seems to a lot of people to show the attitude in place and it doesn't surprise me that 50% of departments in large universities do not allow Wikipedia articles as sources (some even destinations) for student work. Now watch the racist cyber-stalker who tried to speedily delete all that stuff accuse me of one or more of the above. Note that searching on my IP will show you all of the posts from the United State' fourth-largest ISP, genius!

I live in a locale in which the NCCL-DWCMP is known to be a political party and I believe that "The NCCL-DWCMP is a political party which describes itself as Christian Democrat and regionalist" is a factually bullet-proof stub for the article and is a poor but acceptable article by itself.


 * "Cyber-stalking"? "Racism"? "Prejudice"? Honestly, I'm wondering whether you know what those words mean, or whether you're just throwing them around for effect. Cyber-stalking? What, routine patrolling to keep inappropriate articles and content off of Wikipedia, which would otherwise become useless, is "cyber-stalking"? Racism? I have no idea what race the author of the deleted articles is or what races the presumed members of any of the alleged groups are, assuming the groups exist. And prejudice? Prejudice based on what? I know no more about the author of the articles to which you are referring, or to the presumed members of the alleged groups, than I know about any of the authors on Wikipedia, or about the members of any groups for which articles are written that I see when they are new and that I don't delete. I very strongly suggest that you refrain from accusations that make no sense under the circumstances and for which you have no based whatsoever.


 * For your information, several of us looked for reliable evidence that these groups exist and found none. OK? No evidence that they exist, let alone that they meet the level of notability that's required for articles to remain on Wikipedia. Why don't you take a look at Articles_for_deletion/Citizens_for_the_Constructive_Review_of_Public_Policy so you can see how we figured this out? Yet you come in here throwing accusing people of deleting these articles based on pure prejudice, when you evidently have no knowledge of how the decision to make the deletions was carried out. That is the definition of "prejudice".


 * Now, if the political party in question does exist, if it's so minor that there isn't a single independent mention of it anywhere within the reach of Google, then it is highly unlikely that it qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. Since no one came forward during the discussion to present evidence to the contrary, and since the absence of a presence on the Web spoke so strongly, the article was deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why the original author did not defend at least the original stub form of the article, he/she/they did not respond to my message either; but the log concerning speedy deletion does seem made from whole cloth, and anyone has a right to question motive, just like you have mine. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.146.74 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By "anyone has a right to question motive" you appear to mean "anyone has a right to storm in and throw around baseless accusations", because that's what you did. And if your intention here was to affirm your right to do that, then in the future, at the same time that you are treasuring your right to do so, consider everyone else's right to deem such antics unworthy of response. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Google has their own credibility problems -- if they didn't why could web-site authors claim to make a material difference in where something shows up on search results, and their bit with modifying search results based on prior searches speaks for itself. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.146.74 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) People claim anything they want. 2) A page's ranking depends on many things, which include details about how the page and the site that contains it are arranged. This has nothing at all to do with an organization, if it exists, that is so obscure that it isn't mentioned on any page, independent of the organization, that Google indexes.


 * Finally: the talk page of a page that no longer exists is not the place to be carrying on a conversation. I will shortly request that this page be deleted under WP:CSD G8. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)