Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (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The result was Keep per WP:SNOW/Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch (fourth nomination)

Wikipedia Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This website is only being used as an attack site, propaganda site and rant against wikipedia, and it is continuing to grow aswell as the list of sysops real identities. The website in question fails two wikipedia policies, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BADSITES (Even though it was rejected). The site risks the real life identities of wikipedians, and the wikipedia website in general. Also I don't think it is that notable as a website with only 32,000 google hits, we have removed articles on wikipedia attack sites before, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica which basically did the same purpose with its articles on admins. I think we should take it into consideration what this website is doing and what it aims to do. The sunder king 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to be WP:NOTE. Despite being what appears to be a not very nice website, if it notable, I think it should be kept. Otherwise, would it not be considered censorship? Allthough, perhaps the link should be removed from the article, per thisTiddly-Tom 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tiddly Tom. The article is well-referenced, and clearly meets WP:NOTE. That fact that it is used as a rant-site about wikipedia should not be relevant to whether it gets an article her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable website. The purpose of Ecyclopedia Dramatica was to offend, this just intends to keep an eye on us. I was against the deletion of Daniel Brandt- let's not lose this too. J Milburn 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The main rationale for deletion here is an attempt to remove a website that criticizes Wikipedia, which has never been a reason for deletion. WP:ATTACK has nothing to do with this page (maybe the nom means WP:ATP, although that has no relevance either). And how can an article fail a "policy" (WP:BADSITES), when it doesn't even exist as a policy, or even a guideline? This is a typical tactic of Scientology, a website criticizes them, so they try and close the website. Crazysuit 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't call it an attack site, like "WikiTruth". It's proof that Wikipedia has become so far-reaching and relied upon that it gets the same type of scrutiny that the press receives (such as F.A.I.R. does for fairness and accuracy in reporting). Mandsford 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. For an effort to build a free and open encyclopedia we sure seem to be overwhelmed with rather Big Brotherish efforts at censorship. Alansohn 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn heretic at the stake Send dissident to deletion Gulag ...err, maybe Mandsford has a point after all. Seriously, I think such sites help improve wikipedia. ""Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"."--victor falk 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder he created the site! read the nomination! I mentioned that it is putting peoples lives in danger and it is by the hivemind, I don't think you understand!. The sunder king 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable, I don't see how deleting this article will change anything, that website will still exist. Basil Richards 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely "I don't like it" is no grounds for deletion. Would we delete the article on someone we dislike but who was undoubtedly notable?--Bedivere 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- lets wait for a admin to nominate it then every one will vote Delete in favour. The sunder king 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.