Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Wilderness


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 

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)
 * Strong Keep certanly notable in its own context. --Striver 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Strong Keep. This is an important web site and often cited reference. __meco 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.15.13 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * strong keep: Per above.  Ombudsman 03:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep: It's information. Good or bad, it is something which exists. I would certainly like to know why this is even considered something worth deleting... so my question is, why on Earth was it marked for deletion in the first place? --TaranRampersad 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep* This is a very honest and informative newsletter. L.K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.229.235 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2006  (UTC)


 * Keep and stop nominating stuff that's not going to be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep of course' Anyone calling for the deletion of such a page should be banned from Wikipedia and sent to China to experience "freedom of speech". Shame on you! According to two polls conducted by Zogby, roughly half of the American population wants a new investigation of what happened on 9/11. You are trying to censor half of the American population. I repeat: Strothra and censors like him should be banned! They are enemies of democracy. Enemies of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.68.236.68 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 9/11, freedom of speech and democracry are not the point here - the point is checking if the website meets the criteria for inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems to be passing, and by a margin too. --Kizor 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, Whatreallyhappend.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.84.160 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't delete I also find it strange that Wikipedia is seeming to delete some of the most controversial sites like From the Wilderness. Mike Rupert’s observations are based on facts; facts that have basis in mainstream reports. Although I disagree with his peek oil hypothesis, it is a viable argument and one that should not be silenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.54.32 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is seeking to delete? This was the action of a single user and doesn't appear to be working anyway. --Kizor 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Michael Ruppert, as this newletter is not notable enough by itself. A significant portion of this article is about Michael's company anyhow ("They also sell many books and videos ..."). --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep john 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.