Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia


 * 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 was delete. Sr13 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Metapedia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable racist wiki. jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Tiny racist wiki masquerading as an "alternative encyclopedia". A highly emetic read. --Targeman 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A7 - no evidence of notability, and it claims to have had 2500 visitors in a year, which is a bit crap. I've got a mate whose photo album has more views than that. Iain99 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, and reads kind of like an advert for their "encyclopedia". Useight 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to have been covered in independent,reliable sources. I don't suppose by "pro-European" they mean that they support the Reform Treaty ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above. We may need to add it to the spam blacklist too, if editors persist in linking to it inappropriately. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability Giggy  UCP 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Until a few days ago, this was simply a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Couldn't we just revert back to that, without resorting to AFD?  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirecting Metapedia to Wikimedia Foundation would be a really bad idea. Metapedia is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. Due to Metapedia's white supremacist point of view, the last thing the Foundation would want would be for people to think Metapedia is a Foundation project. It should be noted, however, that Metapedia started with a Swedish edition. Its notability should be measured by the larger and more frequently accessed Swedish edition, not the smaller English one. Weak delete. --Metropolitan90 06:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suspect that the redirect was based on an old name for Meta. Anyway, we could always redirect to HMS Montclare (F85), as it was citeably a civilian name for that ship. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point on the Swedishness. The Swedish mainpage has 69000 views which is a bit more respectable (twice what my friend's photo album has!) but the article still offers no evidence of notability. Iain99 07:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you can't argue with WP:IDONTLIKEIT (it's racist). The nom should not have included "racist" as a qualifier. We have articles on Nazism and KKK. However, in this case it doesn't seem notable due to a lack of hits. Guroadrunner 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is without sources but there is no problem with independent sources about Swedish language edition. I hope that Searchlight, Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, Simon Wiesenthal Centre and other organizations, that they doesn't like, will write some sources against them that we will use against them. --Badpound 08:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability, also, this doesn't belong here Rackabello 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Rackabello, Targeman, Iain99, Useight, Giggy, and WillBeBack. Spam, racist, homophobic, all which gives WP a bad name. Bearian 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's notable in the Swedish section (2 580 articles as of now), that means a lot of work. It's not racist, nobody can see anything racist on there, nobody kick blacks or something like that as I can see. Wikipedia should not censor this kind of projects which are worth interest by the community Bh3u4m 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if it's a hate group, which I'm not sure of, people should be aware of this. I disagree that if "gives WP a bad name"... in fact, if it doesn't already say so, the article itself should make it clear that this is not associated with Wikipedia in any way.  Maybe we should delete the entry to The Turner Diaries too, eh?  Mandsford 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. (The nastiness and ignorance of the site — they don't even know what “μετά” actually meant! — is irrelevant.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:49, 21 July 2007 (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.