Deletion of What Really Happened

Comment: This flood of users is in itself all the more reason to delete, per Naconkantari. Also, fails  per many other users; seems to be a disorganized blog about, well, nothing. Delete delete delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: and change  criteria to be more in line with the dictionary definition of notable.   criteria make no allowance for popularity, or many other criteria that can make something notable.  Under these criteria something could be read and depended on by every person on earth and not be considered noteable. —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: does not meet , per nom, contra sockpuppet claque
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: One of 's criteria is awards garnered.  Here are the awards that WRH has earned over the years:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm with links to awarding organizations.   Also if WRH is an article that becomes deleted, then perhaps slashdot and truthout and Drudge Report should be deleted as well.  Which awards has Slashdot or Truthout or DrudgeReport earned that are more substantial than WRH?  (Please do list them below.  Nobel?  Pulitzer?)  As a daily reader of both WRH and DrudgeReport, I find that the view supported by WRH is one of fact-finding by commonfolk American citizens trying to practice democracy the best that they know how, whereas I consider DrudgeReport a propaganda machine that serves well to figure out which emotional froth ''du jour'' that we sheeple are to be worked up to.  Thus I find it offensive to hear labels of "conspiracy theorist" lobbed against WRH, when what WRH is attempting to do is expose facts and evidence that do not fit with the prevailing conventional wisdom.  I hold WRH up (as do the awards) as brave patriotic activist democracy in action by the little guy.  I hold up Wikipedia as much the same.  Also WRH is congruent to Michael Rivero as much as Drudge Report is congruent to Matt Drudge.  Without their mouthpiece blog, Rivero or Drudge is a nobody.  The only reason that Alex Jones interviews Michael Rivero is because of the WRH blog.  Alex Jones doesn't interview Rivero for Rivero's technical business conducted in Hawaii.  Furthermore, Rivero's WRH-centered interviews by Alex Jones syndication itself qualifies as "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".  This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content.  Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it.  I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time.  Looks like censorship to me.  (me? 2,500+ Wikipedia edits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Notable, verifiable, and appears to satisfy  just fine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: On what grounds? No one here has cited exactly HOW this article satisfies 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: does not pass . We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is detrimental to the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. The conspiracy soapbox is way out of proportion to its importance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)