Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th 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The result was   Keep nom withdrawn, no delete votes. Non-admin closure by Lenticel  ( talk ) 05:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh boy... I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be done. The recent AFDs of Encyclopedia Dramatica (closed as keep) and Wikinfo (closed as delete) made me reconsider this article, which is about another 'Wikipedia spin-off website'. It was once thought to pass our notability requirements, but I feel if judged today it would not. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the references provided arguably only contain trivial coverage: brief mentions of the site in articles that are really about Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales (for example:, , ). One of the articles is behind a pay wall, but it is not immediately obvious that it would provide evidence of notability either. As it is, it appears that despite passing several previous AFDs, this site has not received enough coverage to pass the notability test, and the article should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I had no trouble at all finding detailed news coverage of this. WillOakland (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to share? 137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's how easy it was. WillOakland (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It does appear to meet the requirement of WP:WEB. Not by much, but I think it passes. Seventhofnine (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references in the article are obviously not all that exist. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Let's not waste editor time beating a dead horse, researching what others have researched to death. It's not like the previous AfDs were marginal, and there was some opinion that the AfDs were disruptive. If they'd been "no consensus," okay, maybe, but "no consensus" hasn't happened here since the very first one. Notability doesn't die, by the way. Once notable, always notable. In the end, the real standard is that content is verifiable (basic policy) and that the encyclopedia is useful to readers. If an error is made with regard to some notability guideline, as to where the exact boundary is, it's harmless. And, obviously, the community has had enough of this one. I'd recommend the nominator withdraw it, quickly. And since I just looked at it, might as well summarize:
 * 20 April 2006 Wikitruth (same as Wikitruth.info, the page was moved.) No Consensus
 * 10 October 2006 (2nd) "closed early and kept by overwhelming consensus."
 * 29 April 2007 (3rd) "Speedy keep ... WP:SNOW."
 * 7 June 2007 (4th) "speedy close as obvious disruption."
 * 28 September 2007 (5th) "early close as keep, no chance of this ending in anything else."
 * --Abd (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this nomination isn't intended as disruption, it's genuinely in good faith. I honestly don't feel that this article meets our current notability criteria. However, consensus seems to be against me so far, so if no one else agrees on this one, I'd have no problem seeing this AFD closed early as a 'speedy keep'. Terraxos (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to imply that it was, but that some might look at it that way. --Abd (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that it's been kept at AFD several times before doesn't automatically mean it should be kept this time. See the Wikinfo AFD above, which was deleted on its 6th nomination. See also WP:NOTAGAIN. Terraxos (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't a vote to Delete an article that was previously Kept just mean that we should revert to the last Kept version? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I assume nomination was in good faith, because nominator has demonstrated good faith by recognizing consensus against deletion. I support taking the nominator up on the suggestion to close as speedy keep. JamesMLane t c 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, probably best not to drag this out any longer than necessary when consensus is already obvious. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (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.