Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination)

I believe that Wikipedia would do a disservice to internet users all over the world (but particularly to those in the US) by deleting its reference to this web-site. I click on it very regularly, just to find out "what really happened", just because I do not believe what the MSM (mainstream media) dish up. They are maybe just as biased as some of your editors have claimed www.whatreallyhappened.com tp be.

I am very happy with what I have read on that web-site for more than tweo years now. I do not believe everything, but I know that there is another view that may not always be popular, but is still valid and in good faith and taste.

Please keep this in your wikipedia so that more people can be made aware of it. Otherwise you basically condone censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.30.150 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-01 02:39:25 (UTC)

Meta comment
This AfD discussion is almost unreadable. Who is in charge of keeping the AfDs nicely formatted and where can I nominate him to be fired? –Dicty (T/C) 03:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one is currently filling that role, I hereby nominate you for the position in question. You might consider letting yourself off with a stern warning and give yourself a second chance :) --Doc Tropics 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the horrid formatting on the first one and am watching this one closely as well. If comments start getting removed, I'll step in and do the same thing I did last time. Nacon kantari 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When decision time arises, is there a possibility of making this a little more transparent than what we often see is the case? Perhaps displaying a draft summary of establised editors' opinions and new/meatpuppet users' in separate sections. I wouldn't mind if some extra time and manpower went into this part of the process in this particular case. __meco 09:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second that request :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Guideline 3

 * 1) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

Given how controversial the site is, how can it not be considered well known? Look at how many people are trying to kill it!


 * Umm... did you read all of that guideline you quoted? The content is distributed - where are you saying the content is being disibuted?? Inner Earth 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)