| Revision as of 01:23, 4 September 2005 editAI (talk | contribs)5,271 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:36, 4 September 2005 edit undoAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits →[]: - del; just look at author's accusations against other editors IN THE ARTICLENext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ***Hee hee, yes, of course. But it is founded by the Church of Scientology, according to Alexa . ] 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | ***Hee hee, yes, of course. But it is founded by the Church of Scientology, according to Alexa . ] 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ****LOL. Alexa claims it is founded by the Church of Scientology but provides no proof or reference to it's claim. Actually RFW was founded by individual Scientologists who want to support their church. :) --] 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | ****LOL. Alexa claims it is founded by the Church of Scientology but provides no proof or reference to it's claim. Actually RFW was founded by individual Scientologists who want to support their church. :) --] 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| * I am afraid I am going to have to vote '''Delete''' on this one. Despite ]'s claims that he wants "contribution from all POVs and NPOVs" his actual editing shows that he wants it to be his own view and no one else's. Since when was it acceptable Misplaced Pages practice to revert three times, asking for attribution and then refusing to accept it once you get it, and then placing all the attributed material you don't want under a header stating <nowiki>"Claims by ]"</nowiki> '''in the article'''? If AI is going to defend what he erroneously sees as his article with these unacceptable tactics, then we are better off having no article on this subject -- rather than one claimed by this editor as his private soapbox. -- ] 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:36, 4 September 2005
Religious Freedom Watch
Webpage with Alexa ranking of 862,598. Alexa description: Church of Scientology effort to expose religious intolerance, especially--but not exclusively--that directed against Scientology. The information shows a strong bias and is presented without any source. There is nowhere indicated who is responsible for the site. Site is not noteworthy enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Irmgard 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- 'Speedy No context, exists solely for external link. Could probably be made into a real article but isn't one at present. Dlyons493 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion is not the way to expand a stub. --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Irmgard's statement is inaccurate. The information on RFW is presented with sources such as court records, police records, etc. Check out their page on Rick Ross. Who is responsible for the site is irrelevant, but if it is a concern: WHOIS reveal who is responsible. Site is a notable critic of the critics of Scientology Note: RFW is more notable than Barbara Schwarz which is also up for deletion and currently looking like a keep. :) signs of Misplaced Pages's sytemic bias... --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but please include information as to the actual nature of RFW (i.e., a front group founded by Scientology to harass critics.) Sdedeo 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok but make sure you attribute any claims. I doubt you have any proof that it was founded "to harass critics." The site itself claims to expose critics, of course the critics do not like this and claim "harassment." --AI 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hee hee, yes, of course. But it is founded by the Church of Scientology, according to Alexa . Sdedeo 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. Alexa claims it is founded by the Church of Scientology but provides no proof or reference to it's claim. Actually RFW was founded by individual Scientologists who want to support their church. :) --AI 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hee hee, yes, of course. But it is founded by the Church of Scientology, according to Alexa . Sdedeo 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok but make sure you attribute any claims. I doubt you have any proof that it was founded "to harass critics." The site itself claims to expose critics, of course the critics do not like this and claim "harassment." --AI 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am afraid I am going to have to vote Delete on this one. Despite AI's claims that he wants "contribution from all POVs and NPOVs" his actual editing shows that he wants it to be his own view and no one else's. Since when was it acceptable Misplaced Pages practice to revert three times, asking for attribution and then refusing to accept it once you get it, and then placing all the attributed material you don't want under a header stating "Claims by ]" in the article? If AI is going to defend what he erroneously sees as his article with these unacceptable tactics, then we are better off having no article on this subject -- rather than one claimed by this editor as his private soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)