Deletion of What Really Happened (2nd nomination)

Comment: Again, your contention that the site does not meet  criteria is a blatant falsehood. As has been noted and cited in any number of ways in both discussions, it clearly does. And if "anonymous comments" will always be disregarded, then your "wiki" should cease allowing "anonymous comments" to be posted. Threatening to remove such comments from sources 'outside' your 'group' because they post comments you don't approve of (or agree with) shows you have a problem with adverse opinion on some level. And that problem can, should, and will be construed as "editorial bias" in many quarters. Thus, if your policy is to remain truly "neutral" as a good "reference" site, then you shouldn't even be having this discussion. If you want to remain credible, you need to take your personality out of the discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The comment from 83.117.111.61 aside Isotope made an interesting point. No one seems to have said why it shoulod be kept per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This isn't notable, should be moved to . There's a certain amount of vitriol going on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: per nom.  No evidence is currently provided that the site meets .  Article is also very POV as it stands, although I accept that's not grounds for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I have been postponing my decision on this. During the previous AfD I was strongly opposed to deleting the article. At that point I had not read , like *very* many of the "meatpuppet" people here now obviously haven't either. And like them I was moved by a moral imperative that told me that this site is important and if it is deleted then something must be very wrong somewhere. I now have come to realize that the article doesn't conform to Wikipedia's quality standards which apply equally to all articles, and I particularly make a note of the fact that in the month that has passed since the previous nomination the issue that was raised then has not been addressed in earnest fashion. I also would like to comment that unsubstantiated accusations that "the Wikipedia editors" are out to get "What Really Happens" are immature generalizations. I for one believe that it is possible to find both that WRH is an interesting and important website and that this website unfortunately doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards without particularly suspecting that this is simplistically linked with the ubiquitous tentacles of the NWO machinating the Wikipedia voluntary organization. __
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as failing . I've tried very hard to find something in  to allow me to push for keep.  I tried to view the http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/422155701.html?did=422155701&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+17%2C+2002&author=&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Pursue+the+truth+about+Sept.+11 Toronto Star article, but I'm unwilling to pay for it.  I did read the http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774581010&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists followup, where the author retracts her listing.  I view the original article and this retraction as failing  since it appears it is ''Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, ... a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site''.  The http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press5/pr-021118-55.html B'nai Brith mention doesn't actually mention the site, other than indirectly.  I really see no evidence of ''notability'' as Wikipedia uses it.  As to the question of whether such criteria are useful for blogs, I agree that we need to look at this.  There needs to be a clearer understanding of what blogs qualify for inclusion, and even what blogs, if any, can be referenced in main articles.  Right now, it is a real mess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: the article itself '''does not''' fail , and has been markedly improved, particularly with regards to references, since the most recent AfD vote.  I suspect bias against the site and its content is playing a role here; the site is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Jeez this page is long and the arguments are getting vitriolic. Delete because it fails  and it has an Alexa ranking of about 11,000 (yes I know Alexa is not a guideline, but it helps to establish a feel for how popular a website is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: It fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: doesn't seem to pass , despite lots of ghits. Also I see a lot of inline citations in the article, so was somewhat disappointing that they mostly point to links to the website itself and not to ''multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.''  '''Comment''' - But it is nice to see all the new people and ips above contributing to wikipedia; hopefully some of them will stay and become wikipedians after starting here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: and block, for the length of this nomination, all IP addresses used to ''vandalize'' this discussion.  I've been told my "vote" was deleted.)  Non-notable interpretation web site.  (The question of whether anyone else accepts the interpretation is irrelevant; it's just not notable.)  Fails .  ''This is not exactly a re-addition of my vote, because (1) I don't remember exactly what I said, and (2) I read the rest of the comments here.'' &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per Isotope23. (And I'm not just saying that because all the puppets from that site are really annoying, although it could have been tempting. Thank God for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I certainly can't speak for Aeon and I don't really accept non-notable as a reason for deletion, but looking through the first AfD I don't see how What Really Happened meets any of the  criteria.   There was an attempt to justify it per #2, but those awards are very minor "site of the day" type awards.  In my opinion they don't qualify per #2.  There also was an attempt to justify it per #1 essentially arguing that WRH met the criteria per 11 published interviews.  Unfortunately, these interviews were bittorrent, Google Video, and Alex Jones' prisonplanet website.  None of these qualify as non-trivial.  3 more NewsMax cites were added, but none of these articles were ''about'' WRH, they were either mentioned in passing or linked at the end of the article.  Obviously this was ''no consensus'' upon closing, so opinion was split, but I personally see no credible evidence or argument provided that this site meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: does not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I have already 'voted' to '''keep''' but I wanted to cite the following excerpt from the top of : ''This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.''  Notice that is says '''rough guidelines'''.   was '''never''' intended to be some kind of '''absolute law''', and in fact is a living document.  Furthermore, I am sick and tired of ad hominem attacks by referring to posters as meatpuppets simply because they are anonymous, without presenting any evidence that they are in fact sockpuppets.  Talk about a lack of references
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Was going to vote keep for the nice references collection, but they're all references to the site itself!  There's a reference for "banlindex.com" but its hosted on the site in question as well, and http://www.bankindex.com/ http://www.bankindex.com/ is "No website configured at this address"  No evidence of meeting .  All of its claims of notablity are dubious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Inner Earth, please see my entry above on the three separate articles in the Toronto Star on whatreallyhappened.com. At least two of the articles were non-trivial, the source is independent, and being more than one, I would argue that that qualifies as "multiple". Additionally, the site, meets other  criteria as the recipient of of the Democratic Media Award http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html in 2005, a list whose 2006 winners include ABC News Off the Wire, Adbusters magazine, The Nation, and Mother Jones, among others. This is therefore a notable site under the  which only requires the site to meet one of the three criteria listed. The evidence cited throughout this discussion indicates that two of the three criteria are met. Additionally, there is widespread agreement, even from those for deletion of the article, that the policy needs revision. "Wikipedia is not about censorship" nor is it about rule-setting and technical nitpicking. It is as plain as day that the site is notable. A deletion would be a violation of existing Wikipedia policy, both the  and the broader policy per deletion in general. I would argue that it also defeats Wikipedia's purpose. The controversy surrounding Zerbisias' initial article on Rivero's site in the Toronto Star would make an excellent addition to the article and thoroughly justify its inclusion. I will try to make those changes myself, but if anyone else feels inspired, please go ahead
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: as fails  and the article doesn't establish notability for why the subject/website should be included in Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This may need to be closed early per , as this discussion is getting '''way''' out of hand. |Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that extends to these AFD debates
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:NOT)