Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (4th nomination)


 * 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 speedy close as obvious disruption. From xyr contributions, it is clear that is acting in bad faith here. This is a bad faith nomination that is attempting to make some sort of point about the actions of, by first removing all URLs from citations in the article and then nominating the article for deletion. This is an abuse of AFD, not a genuine attempt to discuss the deletion of the article. Uncle G 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:BADSITES/Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Wikitruth has alleged transexualism, sexual practices, real names, and other information on real people here. We can't link to this. It outs and hurts people here. Per IAR, DENY, DIGNITY, and the Foundation privacy policy, delete. Also, per this, we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, per this:


 * I have removed links, in accordance with Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO and Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Per administrators, we will remove this article. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Why does this keep coming up? Are people trying to make it look like Wikipedia has something to hide by deleting references to things that criticise it? Ben W Bell talk  13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because they 'out' users here. Merrick3x 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep; not linking to a website is completely different to deleting an article about the website. This Afd by a SPA is an attempt at wikidrama. John Vandenberg 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If they google the name, or we endorse it, they will find attacking information. Merrick3x 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it doesnt exist on Wikipedia, it doesnt exist ? Wikipedia does not endorse the subjects of its articles.  Grow up. John Vandenberg 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Cowardice -- we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So now a talk page of a policy page is a citeable policy? *Dan T.* 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed links, in accordance with Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO and Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting this would look very lame indeed. Grow up indeed. The last AfD was a nine nil keep less than two months ago. Nick mallory 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NPA has no statute of limitations. Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to argue with every poster on here? Nick mallory 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, after all. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can an admin block this sock please; WP:POINT seems appropriate. John Vandenberg 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, and get rid of the idiotic "badsites" linking policy. See my essay on the subject.  (But if the silly policy is to be kept, then deleting this would at least be consistent.) *Dan T.* 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But that would endanger the well being and personal safety of editors. Merrick3x 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As somebody said in the last AfD for this, "It doesn't look good to keep trying to delete something critical of Wikipedia." That holds for all applications of the "no attack site links" policy. *Dan T.* 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. They are 'outing' and posting personal information on Wikipedians. That makes them an attack site! Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a website, not a carrier battlegroup. Nick mallory 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of article subjects pose a danger to editors, like the US Army, that does not mean we delete the article. ( H )  13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, consensus CANNOT trump policy. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, how is WP:NPOV as a policy? Also remember that policy is descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive. ( H )  14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can't allow for POV. If 100 Christian Fundamentalists edit warred to say Dinosaurs were made by God on the 6th day, with ID sourcing, we would revert it out as trash. And descriptive per admins is we remove this trash. Merrick3x 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me that deleting the article would be pushing a POV, not keeping it. [[User talk:H| (H ) ]] 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal privacy is a right, not a POV! Merrick3x 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Call a lawyer. ( H )  14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. A few refs to minor websites and one to the Guardian is insufficient to establish notability.--MONGO 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You understand. Speedy is now invalidated. Merrick3x 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No hurry, I don't think this was going to be speedied anyways. ( H )  14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a sockpuppet troll making a WP:POINT who started this AfD (which certainly seems likely), you seem to be taking the bait anyway... I guess you have no choice, since if you voted to keep this while continuing to campaign against linking to other allegedly "BADSITES", it would seem hypocritical. *Dan T.* 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd...my vote to delete seems to have no mention of anything other than it's lack of notability. I looked over that website and what I saw were a number of egregious attacks, but NOT the kind of ongoing persistant efforts to try and figure out the real life identities of our contributors as is done on WR. Can someone PLEASE explain to Mr. Dtobias that the issue is websites that actively try to "out" our editors...not ones that are simply mirroring content from other places and adding stupid nonsense. WikiTruth is an obvious parody site (and not notable to boot)...WR makes no such distinction.--MONGO 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I campaigned for no such thing. I am assuming good faith with the nom, so I don't think I am taking any bait. ( H )  14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was replying to MONGO, not you... I apologize if it was unclear. *Dan T.* 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, my mistake. ( H )  14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised about there leaking of private ICQ# - but I cant see how anything else they have leaked is concern. The Internet has been active 15 years and the waybackwhen machine document most of them, everything they say they have discovered was in the public domain anyway. but not the ICQ# that is probably a legal matter. Mike33 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mongo. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is within free speech that another website may criticize another website. It does not provide any extreme attacks on any individual and it is notable because the website has been featured in several prominent pieces.  I don't agree with what they say as much as any Wikipedia editor but we cannot let our personal beliefs interfere with following acceptable policy. Plm 209 (talk to me • contribs) 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Fourth nomination.  Nothing new to see here, move along. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, per first four nominations, per sources, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem as I see it (I could be wrong) is that its not a hate site. It addresses many of the concerns that many editors share openly in talk everyday (ad infinitum). Wikitruth just does it in the sneaky, "lets write about miss on myspace" type of way. But unlike myspace 'miss' has no way of putting her point accross of getting it stopped. We are all here to make wikipedia better - they fail in their attempts. Deleting the article wouldn't make them go away. NPOV often means that we discuss in articles conflicting points of view. A NPOV would say that if Wikipedia is list so should Wikitruth.
 * Hilarious SchmuckyTheCat
 * Comment I'm not going to vote on this because my personal deletionist views would eliminate an article on a website with a few Real PressTM cites that is going to evaporate and be forgotten six months after someone quits paying the bills for it. That's way out of step with the prevailing opinion in AfD. But this nomination is in bad faith; User:Merrick3x seems to have been created specifically to push this AfD. Mangoe 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NN.   MortonDevonshire  Yo   · 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Congratulations to User:Merrick3x, for bringing the outing material at Wikitruth to the attention of more editors. How much are they paying you to advertise for them?  (Please note that the preceding was an example of irony; I strongly suspect that Marrick3x doesn't actually intend to drive traffic to Wikitruth via an unlikely-to-succeed, likely-tp-generate-DRAMA! AfD.  All the same, that's the easily forseeable effect.) -GTBacchus(talk) 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What Mangoe said. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 7 June 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.