Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (4th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:22, 15 July 2007 view sourceMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators148,954 edits Comment on AfD.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:45, 18 April 2022 view source WOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators854,737 editsm Fix lint errors 
(34 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Speedy keep''', quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:No problem with this. ]&nbsp;] 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Misplaced Pages's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the ], which never works, since the ] have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking. We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Misplaced Pages's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the ], which never works, since the ] have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.
Line 6: Line 15:
*'''Speedy Keep''' First off, there has been three other strong majority consensus' for keeping this article is the previous AFDs, for good reason. The article obviously meets ] with verification of significant coverage in 41 reliable, independent sources. This site has been covered in news articles all over the U.S. and the world, including the New York Times. Furthermore, ] and "we should attack it" are not valid arguments for deletion. Misplaced Pages carries a ], and doesn't make value judgments of any kind. Being an attack site is not a valid argument for deletion. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Speedy Keep''' First off, there has been three other strong majority consensus' for keeping this article is the previous AFDs, for good reason. The article obviously meets ] with verification of significant coverage in 41 reliable, independent sources. This site has been covered in news articles all over the U.S. and the world, including the New York Times. Furthermore, ] and "we should attack it" are not valid arguments for deletion. Misplaced Pages carries a ], and doesn't make value judgments of any kind. Being an attack site is not a valid argument for deletion. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
**DO NOT VOTE KEEP!! This site should burn in hell. I want it GONE, and deleting this article is the first step in remvoing this abomination of conservatism from the internet.] 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) **DO NOT VOTE KEEP!! This site should burn in hell. I want it GONE, and deleting this article is the first step in remvoing this abomination of conservatism from the internet.] 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
***It seems you may need to read about ], mainly, that it is not anyone's soapbox. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. ] reasoning is unconvincing... --] 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. ] reasoning is unconvincing... --] 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:"Malcolmx15", I now officially hate you. I don't mean to be a troll, but I HATE anyone who doesn't HATE Conservapedia. Oh and did I mention that CP is the worst site ever made. Even goatse.cx wasn't this BAD... ] 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
**Nathaniel, please refrain from making ] and behaving in an ] manner. Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
***Should we report him? ] • <sup>(((] • ])))</sup> 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
****Give him a chance to do better. Policy surrounding incivility is outlined in ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The article is ] in nature and quite ] as well. --<span style="background:gold">]]</span><sup><span style="background:yellow">]</span></sup> 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::That DOESN'T MATTER. The site is HORRIBLE, that matters. If we dlete the article, this crap may die faster and that will be a GREAT day when it finally gets what it deserves and burns in HELL. ] 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Grow up. Disagreeing with the political stance of something is no reason to delete it and the over the top nature of the nominator's language merely draws attention to the paucity of his arguments. ] 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:I don't disagree with its "political stance", I'm a homeschooled American Christian conservative myself. I disagree with the fact that the site isn't even that conservative, and that it is too "family-friendly", it makes stupid legal threats, etc. And, WP users should agree with me. ] 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"'''Comment''' we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a ] here and advertise it wherever I want. ] 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Wouldn't deleting this article make ''us'' as bad as ''them''? ''']''' 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
**At leeast WE aren't a menace to free speech. ] 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - not a great site, but certainly notable and newsworthy. "They are evil people" is not a reason to delete. -- ] | ] 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If this weren't encroaching on ] territory, I would have trouble understanding why this is much of a question. It has 40 solid references and meets ] with room to spare. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep''' as bad faith nom and borderline vandalism.''']'''<sup><span style="color:green">]/]</span></sup> 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''-my criticism stems from the fact that there is nothing I hate nore than public-schooled liberals, and many of the admins, even some of the most prominent admins, are public-schooled liberals. Thus there is public-schooled liberalism, and use of liberal terms such as "homophobia" throughout the wiki. I never liked it, but when I saw the legal threats, I got fed up. ] 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Thank god for informed consensus decisions. I do not believe ] was established to publish/promote/list/or other wise circulate articles that are found worthy or are appropriately correct to just a few individuals thinking. My understanding, and the most important one that comes to mind, is that ] was founded to disseminate information on noteworthy topics to all people regardless of what that information is or who agrees or disagrees with the information. If it is verifiable and it is noteworthy it belongs. No matter who believes otherwise. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></span>
*'''Speedy Keep''' - can someone please advise the nominator to please stop wasting the communities time by nominating articles for deletion that qualify for speedy keep? -- <strong>]</strong>] 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Can these edit conflicts stop wasting my time? ] 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 06:45, 18 April 2022

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 Speedy keep, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with this. Neil ╦ 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Misplaced Pages's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.

Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Malcolmx15", I now officially hate you. I don't mean to be a troll, but I HATE anyone who doesn't HATE Conservapedia. Oh and did I mention that CP is the worst site ever made. Even goatse.cx wasn't this BAD... Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That DOESN'T MATTER. The site is HORRIBLE, that matters. If we dlete the article, this crap may die faster and that will be a GREAT day when it finally gets what it deserves and burns in HELL. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Grow up. Disagreeing with the political stance of something is no reason to delete it and the over the top nature of the nominator's language merely draws attention to the paucity of his arguments. Nick mallory 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with its "political stance", I'm a homeschooled American Christian conservative myself. I disagree with the fact that the site isn't even that conservative, and that it is too "family-friendly", it makes stupid legal threats, etc. And, WP users should agree with me. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't deleting this article make us as bad as them? ~ Infrangible 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a great site, but certainly notable and newsworthy. "They are evil people" is not a reason to delete. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If this weren't encroaching on "avoid self reference" territory, I would have trouble understanding why this is much of a question. It has 40 solid references and meets WP:WEB with room to spare. Shalom 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom and borderline vandalism.H 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-my criticism stems from the fact that there is nothing I hate nore than public-schooled liberals, and many of the admins, even some of the most prominent admins, are public-schooled liberals. Thus there is public-schooled liberalism, and use of liberal terms such as "homophobia" throughout the wiki. I never liked it, but when I saw the legal threats, I got fed up. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Thank god for informed consensus decisions. I do not believe Misplaced Pages was established to publish/promote/list/or other wise circulate articles that are found worthy or are appropriately correct to just a few individuals thinking. My understanding, and the most important one that comes to mind, is that Misplaced Pages was founded to disseminate information on noteworthy topics to all people regardless of what that information is or who agrees or disagrees with the information. If it is verifiable and it is noteworthy it belongs. No matter who believes otherwise. ShoesssS
  • Speedy Keep - can someone please advise the nominator to please stop wasting the communities time by nominating articles for deletion that qualify for speedy keep? -- Anonymous Dissident 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Can these edit conflicts stop wasting my time? Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
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.