Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightpedia


 * 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 - this winter has been long enough. I'm finding no consensus whether or not to redirect, but I note that all mention of Rightpedia has been removed from the Metapedia article as of right now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Rightpedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot find a single reliable source that reports on Rightpedia in depth, aside from the two SPLC articles which are equally, if not more about Wikipedia/WMF's policies. This website woefully fails WP:NWEB and while it's interesting and has history for many long term editors here, outside of the Wikipedia-world, it's utterly irrelevant. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedy - may fail WP:A7 as there is not a shred of notability to be seen. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered that first but the SPLC piece is significant despite not establishing notability. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - poor existing sourcing, and a Google search uncovers no media coverage. The SPLC alert, which is listed twice,  isn't enough. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the worst sourcing I've ever seen; Stormfront, Twitter, Wikipediocracy, and WP:SPI are all references. I don't see enough that meets GNG; the only thing I find not in the article is the RationalWiki article on it.  The site itself has about 2 editors and barely loads, I doubt anyone would want to discuss it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Hilariously poor referencing. There's some mildly interesting results on Google News, but nothing close to establishing notability. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Very poor reference. Not very interesting at all. INeedSupport (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly WP:SALT due to notability concerns namely being just self published sources out there. I would add salt here due to the socks that were all recently caught editing this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete fails notability, poor sourcing. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect (fully protected) with an optional very minimal merge to Metapedia where there is already a short explanation of this topic. That paragraph is sufficient coverage given that this is only a very minimally notable topic. If that can be expanded very slightly with a very little of the material here, and one or two of the better references, then that would be OK but I don't see sufficient sources for this to have its own article or even a large section in any other article. It is sufficient that anybody who wishes to know what it is can search for it and get redirected to a short paragraph telling them what it is. This is not the sort of topic where greater detail adds greater edification. Whatever the outcome here, I recommend permanent full protection in order to prevent the lolnazis and their sockpuppets from messing around with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with redirecting is that the sentence about it is totally unsourced. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  10:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is the SPLC source for that, so delete and redirect makes sense. The most important part is delete though, considering the total lack of significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't push back on this but the one sentence mention of Rightpedia in the SPLC article supports virutally nothing in the paragraph on Metapedia. It's hardly meaningful and saying "Rightpedia was created by a neo-nazi from Metapedia" is rather silly. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It supports the fact that RP is a fork of MP and since RP is a possible search term, it makes sense to redirect as long as it's mentioned in the MP article. As I said though, deletion is more important. Redirect can always be created later. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Much as I am sure this must be notable, I can actually find no decent sources for it. So I have to vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Redirect so long as the mention at Metapedia stays. Don't see a need to salt yet. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing the need to WP:SALT yet. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Not notable. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator should try WP:PROD next time. w umbolo   ^^^  15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to Metapedia (again on the basis it's discussed there, so a redirect makes sense and allows someone searching us something to find, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have somewhere where it's made clear how disgusting the site is. Don't salt, I don't think there's a need yet. Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.