Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Weltner

The Wikipedia should not be a platform to publicise people with minority views so abhorrent to a civilized society, that the Wiki is the only place they are able to air them. Sorry if this sounds pompous. It's Delete: Giano 20:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- speaking of outing people....how does Frank Weltner manage to keep these gigantic web sites running? a list of his contributors would probably be as interesting as his sites.
 * Redirect to Jew Watch. RickK 21:02, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, JewWatch was certainly notable, and the article claims he's been quoted in the Washington Post and NY Times; if this article is true in those regards, then he's certainly attracted a good deal of attention. His name gets 896 google hits. Keep for now, seems notable, but somebody stub this thing and pick out the anti-Semitism and wild claims. A redirect would serve as well, if it's deemed he's not notable [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:04, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - vanity/advert for a cause - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, keep. The subject of an article having abhorrent views is not a criterium for deleting an article (to give the obvious example: Adolf Hitler). And Frank Weltner does seem to be notable (infamous?) enough to warrant an entry. I added a "neutrality disputed" note to the current version of the article, though - it is horribly POV. Elf-friend 21:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Extremists are good at getting in the papers. Scream, throw a brick, and you, too, can be in the paper.  This is so marginal a phenomenon that only Klan Watch needs to note it. Geogre 21:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or cleanup so that it's about 40 words long, then redirect. Hayford Peirce 21:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Marginal keep. There is some basis for notability. I won't judge the inclusion of an article based on my dislike of its subject, but this certainly needs major NPOVing if kept. Everyking 00:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, keep. Well known but despicable subject. Rhymeless 05:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Geogre's comment. Ambi 07:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; redirect to Jew watch sounds good. Samboy 08:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This horrible man and his repulsive views may be considered notable in USA., but the English speaking World is huge and he's so far not known there! Do the World a favour and keep it that way, before he and his like do gain the momentum and become truly  'Wiki-worthy'  like Adolf Hitler Giano 21:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A lot (most?) of Wikipedia's articles would have to be deleted if the criterium for inclusion was world-wide notability. Whether a topic or a person is repulsive or not should not be the reason for listing an article on VfD. Valid reasons are: Patent nonsense, Original research, No potential to become encyclopedic, Completely idiosyncratic non-topic, Vanity page, Advert or other spam, Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases. IMHO this article doesn't fall under any of these topics although the article should be heavily NPOV'ed, of course. But as the originator/owner of a website against which a googlebombing campaign involving Wikipedia was waged he is, unfortunately, notable. Elf-friend 23:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)