Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd 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 of the debate was delete. — Jul. 4, '06 [18:17] <freak|talk>

What Really Happened

Note: There was a short period of time when this page was not properly linked from the main Articles for Deletion page. I think it's fixed, now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What Really Happened was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/What Really Happened.

As I have said on the previous deletion discussion, personal attacks on contributors are strictly forbidden. This is your only warning. Anyone attacking another contributor, anonymous or registered, will be blocked from editing. Thanks Naconkantari 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This website is not that notable and should not be included in an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of every website on the planet. Google and yahoo searches only came up when using Site name or several of the varaions (such has what happened or Really happened ect.) Aeon 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you realize that you are nominating this site almost exactly one month after it was nominated for deletion on the same grounds of it allegedly being non-notable. I further hope you realize the human resources that get tied up in a process like this that could otherwise be spent in productive editing and expansion of Wikipedia. I wonder if there are any instruments implemented to annul these types of AfD nominations that in my opinion are frivolous. __meco 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please explain, Aeon1006, how and why you think that this web site does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. "This website is not that notable" is not sufficient by itself. How, specifically, does the website fail to satisfy the criteria? Uncle G 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• I feel it necessary to quote from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations (my highlighting):

  In general, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations.
  

• Does Aeon1006 feel that the previous deletion process suffered from a marked lack of contributors? __meco 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I can't speed for Aeon, but the previous AfD was closed as No consensus. And this isn't an immediate renomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  No consensus means the article survived anyway. And, how many articles' nomination for deletion happens twice in 30 days? --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain because I feel that this article should not have been renominated so quickly from my initial nomination. I was planning on a renom in a few months when I had a better argument. --Strothra 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 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 WP:WEB criteria. There was an attempt to justify it per WP:WEB#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 WP:WEB#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 WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  That is a far better rationale than the one given in the nomination. Thank you. Uncle G 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence is currently provided that the site meets WP:WEB. Article is also very POV as it stands, although I accept that's not grounds for deletion. Tevildo 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment to above I have been trying to reply for a few minutes but have been unable to due to about a half dozen edit conflicts. In review of WP:WEB I found I was in error. Thank you Uncle G for pointing this out to me. And is response to the AFD renom I thought a month was enough time to renom. If this is also in error then please let me know so I can avoid making that mistake again. Aeon 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC) In retrospect I feel I was justified to submit this for AFD (Not only reading some of the comments but seeing has how the site is mostly a soapbox) Aeon 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think it's in poor judgment, and, as you can read in the quote above, it actually violates the criteria for hasty renomination. Consider that last time this article was up for deletion a huge number of people spent their time (the entire debate actually made up 97kb) on it, and now you're asking all of them to repeat that exercise. __meco 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  To be fair to Aeon, it only violates your reading of the criteria meco based on the bolded text above. It specifically states that there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations... which essentially leaves it open to interpretation by individual editors. There is no violation here, just a difference in opinion as to what constitutes an immediate renomination. As for the effort an AfD takes, the previous AfD is linked so hopefully editors participating can read through the article, the previous AfD, and arguments here before rendering a well-thought out opinion. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate about an article's merits, particularly when the previous AfD ended without consensus being reached.--Isotope23 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think this nomination clearly violates the criteria for an immediate renomination. I will concede the opinion that it is valid if some will argue that it is NOT an immediate renomination, which I consider it to be. __meco 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Fair enough... nothing wrong with a difference of opinion!--Isotope23 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes fair enough, And it was my interpretation on the Deletion Policy, perhaps there should be an review of the renom part of the policy to address this issue so it doesn't come up again. But that is a topic for a differnt discussion. Aeon 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom (aside from the broken links and/or redirection, making edit not work). (Reinserted vandalised text, but voted again below.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I reverted the moves which broke editing; perhaps some admin can complete the reversion to the proper linkages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep(Halbared 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per Isotope23. We need to either change the criteria or follow it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Do you have any opinion with regards to changing criteria? __meco 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think if anything WP:WEB should be more stringent. Because many of us are on line a lot, there may be a natural tendency to exaggerate the importance of a website. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I will not disagree. __meco 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Isotope23. I appreciate Meco's concern for my use of time. Tychocat 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOV and fails WP:WEB (Alexa ranking of 10,711, but the site doesn't seem to have won any notable awards). Most blogs aren't notable enough for inclusion here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article itself does not fail WP:NPOV, 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. Earpol 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with you in that the site is notable. However, the question of whether Wikipedia's criteria are capable of establishing this remains. The problem might lie with Wikipedia's current set of criteria. __meco 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Fact: Google Test results in about 387,000 references for WhatReallyHappened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.186.218 (talk • contribs) 01:21, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has only made one edit outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.

• Considering the fact that I and many many more people visit WRH (intentionally, as opposed to redirect or Googling) - AND, after clicking on so many of the links (in the Wikipedia site) under the heading of WRH, it appears to me that WRH is actually much more "Notable" than this site with all the psuedo intellectual arguing about the nuances of the criteria for "notability" and deletion - AND, that, just like so many other things in Wikipedia (which really Could be a good idea, IF there were ANY control over the FACTUALNESS of the information - AND a restriction of the ability of axe-grinders and special interests, i.e., Zionists, as an excellent example, (and other people who have Obviously never even bothered to actually look up the dictionary or encyclopedic definition of the word "Semite" in ALL it's meanings!) to just jump in and edit and erase whatever they simply don't like. SO, it is my opinion that WRH deserves to be in this compilation of accurate - and inaccurate - information website just as much as "Wikipedia" itself does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.235.6.178 (talk • contribs) 01:42, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Most of this users edits are to this AfD. User in question only has a few edits to on eother article. Aeon 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• support, keep: whatreallyhappened is a regular daily source of information and deserves to be kept in WikipediaMirrorsoul 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.

• Keep: This is ridiculous, renominating articles for deletion at the drop of a hat every month or so, and besides WRH is very notable site well known and frequently linked to. It may annoy some here who don't like the site, but well bang I don't like the US government either, so maybe we should nominate that article for deletion too??? KEEP. Of course. 61.205.97.120 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Aaron

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This website, while a bit focused on Israel, which is the reason why some people want to have it deleted, is just a set of links to very informative news articles. It is and has been a key resource for researchers. To delete it from Wikipedia is pure politics and frankly, silly.[End]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.71.69 (talk • contribs) 02:00, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, It seems obvious to me that a political bias motivates some who want to delete this site, else why the harping and bitching about it? "What Really Happened" provides access to controversial issues, many contemporary and some within the past several years. This is not the type of site that the Wikipedia should suppress.24.1.11.49 02:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has only edited one article outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• At this time it might be prudent to take note of the fact that information about this second nomination of What Really Happened was posted on whatreallyhappened.com at 01:05 (UTC) under the headline "Wikipedia tries to delete What Really Happened a second time" linking directly to this page, and with additional text:

  Despite the previous public response, Wikipedia is once again trying to move the article on What Really Happened towards deletion. Winston Smith, call your office.

  __meco 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, thanks for the full disclosure meco. Looks like Puppetfest is about to start.--Isotope23 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, looks like a puppetfest initiated re-nomination for deletion.24.1.11.49 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• What in the world is wrong with Wikipedia? Have you folks gone mad? I suggest that perhaps it is Wikipedia that is non relevent, if you are too small for the likes of WRH. I have visited WRH for years, and have learned so much. Basically the site posts news - and truth. but I have to wonder about Wikipedia, are you trying to re-write history? KEEP. § joyce 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Though I do sympathize with the frustration felt by avid readers of What Really Happened. I would like to express my take on the reason why this is happening (again) which I believe is threefold: 1) It is true that the article about What Really Happened lacks credible sources that would testify to the notability of the site to "someone who isn't acquainted with the site", i.e. most Wikipedia contributors. 2) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of a web site (which can be read at WP:WEB) may in fact be deficient and in need of revision. 3) True, What Really Happened is shunned by most mainstream outlets which leads to it not getting the publicity other sites would have received all things being equal. Apart from that, while I have your attention, I might entice you to read Wikipedia's quite good article about conspiracy theory and urge all that come here basically to fight the nomination for deletion to become active contributors to the Wikipedia project. __meco 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. whatreallyhappened has some original content as well as being a collection of the current batch of links pertinent to the views of the site editor. It is the "Go-To" place for updates on the unprecidented changes taking place in the American way of life that the neo-conservatives, and likely the fanatic zionists are bringing about. The Dog that Did not Bark, and The Crime of the Century are just two pieces of original content on the site. Have you read them? You'll have to read 1984 to know who Winston Smith is.--112358 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a silly politically motivated call for deletion. Wikipedia has links to many similar political commentary web sites: frontpagemag.com, discoverthenetworks.org, antiwar.com. Many many such sites are documented - because they exist out there in the world and are relevant. This is part of a concerted effort by zionists and their supporters to have wikipedia reflect their POV. Its part of a project to remove not only whatreallyhappened, but also a whole list of similar anti-zionist political commentary web sites. --rafael
• Keep Even though there was no consensus, and the last keep was a default keep, I still feel enough unique people contributed to the last discussion that we should not open this up again. 24.54.83.216 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• You may choose to do as you will but the truth is zionism is losing its battle to suppress and obscure the truth. Wikipedia is the last place I would visit to obtain investagatory information on ANY subject. This site is no different than the textbooks used in American schools. Superficial, skewed and absolutely biased. Sorta like Dragnet with a twist, "History has beed altered to protect the guity", but not for much longer. As an educator I can assure you that the students that go through my class are given perspective, depth, and content in order to FULLY educate them as to the events that are taking place around them.~ksdrover~
• KEEP– This page is a relly good source of information, news that you can't see in any other MSM outlet, so it keep your info in balance. Unique and controversial. Franco17 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WhatReallyHappened in Wikipedia.

WhatReallyHappened is within WP:NPOV, because it is essentially a news service website which happens to include short descriptions of the meaning of the news articles linked to in the opinion of the site administrator. Like any website, there is an option for reader comments, however this option clearly isn't the primary focus of the site in form or function. The readers comments section, a tiny link on the left hand column, has no flash and little color. Obviously the administrator doesn't consider reader comments the primary focus of his site, and the reader cannot mistake the site for that purpose. WhatReallyHappened is not "blog-like" because the primary highlighted information, prominently displayed throughout the majority and in the center of home page, is composed of links chosen by the site administrator which are not found in the mainstream media, which is the stated and obvious purpose of the site: provide links to articles and information not found in the mainstream media, along with original content and characterizations of the external information by the site administrator, which the reader is free to reject or accept in relation to the article or information presented.

When a member of the mainstream media scoops another publication, that particular media wishes to present information not found in the other media. By consistently highlighting articles not typically found in what is considered the mainstream media, WhatReallyHappened consistently scoops that media, or any other media not reflecting the information. Further, if Free Republic isn't deleted for failure to adhere WP:NPOV, logically it isn't possible to delete WhatReallyHappened for failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, because no website violates WP:NPOV like Free Republic, and Free Republic is decisively "blog-like".

Next, the primary purpose of WhatReallyHappened as a significant source of unusual news links significantly disables much application of WP:WEB, because the guts of WP:WEB largely depend upon definitions fulfilled by the same media WhatReallyHappened is not designed to represent. What would the charge of the Web be then, if WhatReallyHappened were represented in claimed "reliable" media, that WhatReallyHappened is a mainstream puppet? Reliable media like The Nation or Mother Jones magazines aren't referred to in most media, heck, the Congressional Budget Office isn't even represented properly, with its accurate numbers prepared by dutiful civil servants held up in comparison to politically motivated numbers provided by private companies like the Heritage Foundation.

Yes, the move for renomination for deletion is in violation of standards of reasonableness in relation to not allowing immediate renomination. It isn't really arguable except on hypertechnical grounds, the next afternoon after the previous nomination for deletion failed could be said not to be immediate, if one wants to be hypertechnical. To a reasonable person there is obviously a campaign to remove WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, and, to a reasonable person, the nomination for deletion is itself in violation of WP:NPOV because of that campaign, once a reasonable person has reached the conclusion that the renomination violates the immediacy rule. The criteria for renomination for deletion should be that some change has occurred in relation to WhatReallyHappened since the last discussion for deletion which qualifies for another motion for deletion. We're entitled to hear what new information has come to light since the last discussion which qualifies WhatReallyHappened for a new motion for deletion.

WhatReallyHappened is a notable website, first for many references to its data in other well known and established websites, like Counterpunch, which credits WhatReallyHappened with good "detective work", because of the "11 published interviews" a detractor here tried to minimize, and because awards like "Site of the Day" is a criteria the Web uses to rate other sites. Would Wikipedia turn a "Site of the Day" award down? And why does Robert-Fisk.com bother with WhatReallyHappened, surely Robert Fisk is notable and reliable, risking his life in Iraq and Lebanon? Why did Wikipedia fail to delete WhatReallyHappened the last nomination, if it wasn't notable in the earlier determination? I don't see how, if the matter was a split decision, this split decision is anything but a failure to prove WhatReallyHappened isn't notable, it clearly was a failure to prove that, and there's no new information to say that WhatReallyHappened isn't notable. There is, however, new information that WhatReallyHappened is notable, in addition to the earlier failure to delete it as non-notable, because another nomination for deletion has occurred within a month of the last effort to delete WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, when no new information has arisen in the meantime to cause this nomination for deletion. That is notable in relation to WhatReallyHappened, and it has happened because WhatReallyHappened is a notable website which draws such attention.

Roukan 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP–Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias64.193.3.46 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, and ENSURE a neutral point of view

O.k., this is REALLY starting to get out of hand... Wikipedia should do everything that is humanly possible to make certain that no one-sided, or unprofessional views are permitted. Having said that, these constant nominations for deletion are nothing more than malicious attempts to supress valuable information.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Rivero, (and/or his website), is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this website. Wikipedia was designed to allow a wealth of information to be contributed from all kinds of people, from all walks of life, from all political or religious affiliations, and from every corner of the globe. Does whatreallyhappened.com present a professional NPOV? Of course not. :P But the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on it DOES, (or at least, should).

If we start deleting articles about websites, or cult movements simply because we don't agree with them; and/or because they might offend certain groups of people, where does that inevitably lead? Would we have to delete articles on rival political parties? Would we have to delete the article on "Red Magen David" because it offends Muslims?, the article on "Huckleberry Finn" because it offends Americans of African descent?, or perhaps the article on the "Spanish Inquisition" because a recent revelation that Tomas Torquemada was a converted Jew might offend people of that particular faith? Seriously, at what point do we draw the line?

The reality is that there IS a site called whatreallyhappened.com . The only adequate reason for deleting this article would be said website NEVER EXISTED, and is just somebody's idea of a joke.

As a fountain of information, Wikipedia should do everything possible to give all people the right to speak their minds, so long as they do so in a professional way, and expressing a neutral point of view, when writing a fair and balanced article. Pine 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• MMIE: Wikipedia is a place for knowledge , not editorial bias. Editors need to keep their politics to themselves.
• Oh, yes, it's political, we're all screaming righties trying to get one barely notable site deleted. Weak keep for barely enough notability to make it, just like I voted last time. Despite the HWFO. Folks? Orwellian references are really counterproductive and just make you look silly, especially considering the nomination comes from a single editor, not Wikipedia itself. Tony Fox (speak) 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not again..please keep this entry. It is a good web site...just because it is not pro isreal does not make it antisemetic...honesty this is just very silly
• Strong Delete as fails WP:WEB and the article doesn't establish notability for why the subject/website should be included in Wikipedia. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: A second time for deletion one month later? Get real. This is clearly politics and attempted censorship. Someone is trying to delete it because it's one of the top and most popular alternative news sites on the internet - that, by definition, makes it important and worthy of inclusion. It's also very controversial - that also makes it important and worthy of inclusion, and actually worthy of having an article with a neutral point of view. (Which so far the incorrect article has not been neutral being repeatedly reset to incorrect information.)

The real reason the site is being targeted is because it combines three dangerous things: controversial politics, disturbing truth (presented in the form of directly linked verifyable media reports, many of them mainstream, but under reported), and popularity. This is causing abusive interpretations of the rules hoping to cause it to go away by attacking those which link to it. Admittedly the opinions of the site owner border on abusive hate speech and anti semitism at times lashing out with cynicism and outrage, but it primarily serves as a link page to suppressed or nontrivial articles in mainstream or alternative media even for people who do not agree with the political feelings of the site owner.

I do not like or believe the opinions of the author, but I believe censoring the article about him would only prove his claims right all that much more. I read it to find under represented news. Both the WRH site itself and the article here on it could use some clean up, but they absolutely need to be in Wikipedia if you dont want to have a huge gaping hole which is painfully obvious because there is no article there. Deleting it would be dangerous and very counterproductive, showing Wikipedia to be a compromised and nontrustable reference source from now on.

My opinion of Wikipedia has dropped to about a quarter of what it was a month ago for even seeing this. The first call for deletion didnt really surprise me, actually falling for the second so soon again is approaching absurd. I've written articles for Wikipedia in the past, but I will not waste my time on it in the future if it is turned into yet another personal whipping boy due to threats forcing it into a political viewpoint. I will not waste my money on more donations either if it simply kowtows to a shortsighted minority trying to bully others into accepting their point of view.

Lets just be honest and say it all out in the open. Quit pretending that Wikipedia or certain people within Wikipedia are not being pressured in some abusive manner to try and quietly make the article and links go away. Stop the selectively overzealous interpretation of the rules on political grounds and let the truth stand for itself. Wikipedia's reputation has already been tarnished over this, I never even suspected rumors that other articles had been politically censored until WRH came up TWICE in this short of time. If the deletion goes through or ever comes up again it will just prove everyone right and other support may well flock away in droves after seeing the smoking gun of censorship.

To those saying the site is barely notable, how do you call 4-6 million page views per day of nothing other than hardcore news non notable? Considering the level of controversy and strength of opinions about it? 84.9.109.10 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: border added to demarcate entire comment. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The site is definitely notable. The rapid renomination provides evidence of this. Orwellian may be an axaggeration, but McCarthyism isn't. One must question whether the nominator has a political agenda.
• Comment Can people adding comments please sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) and also please address the problems Isotope23 has highlighted that the article has (namely failing inclusion criteria per WP:WEB)? This AfD is related to the article in its present state. The site may be notable, however it fails to establish notablity (see: WP:VERIFY). Please also try to keep comments short, and avoid breaking policies such as WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA. Thanks, TheJC (talk • contribs • count) 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and let me add that new contributors should read WP:AGF as well before spouting off completely unsubstantiated "suspicions" that this nomination was somehow politically motivated. There is no evidence that is the case and a quick scan of the nominator's edit history shows no reason to believe he/she has any political bias here.--Isotope23 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with THAT suggestion. First law of Wikipedia deletions: Any alleged "the truth the government doesn't want you to see" site + AFD = heaps of meatpuppets. Tony Fox (speak) 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This site generates a lot of traffic and it has interesting information and a long history. (longer than Wikipedia, as it happens.) I suspect the call for deletion was motiviated by the caller's political point of view. WhatReallyHappened.com is one of the few websites which represents conservatives who don't neccesarily support the current US government. Keep. 202.89.180.58 07:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader
• Keep SDC 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep .... Haven't we done all this debate before? Bob Loblaw 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Do we have to go through this rigmarole again? Wikipedia is getting ruined by biased deletion attempts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.100.130 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. What Really Happened is a very good known Independant Information Source. --Ko de Dok (User:83.162.17.74) 08:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Above comment by User:83.162.17.74, who changed sig to this non-existent user. [1] KWH 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING TOO, NOW OUR T.V MASTERS HAVE TO WORK IN THE [ONLINE PLAYING FIELD]. THERE ARE MORE DECENT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EVERYDAY BECAUSE OF THE NET, AND IT'S ALL FALLING APART FOR THE "T.V GENERATION", HOW SAD, DELETE IT AND WIKIPEDIA WILL BECOME IRELLIVANT, SORRY WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs)
• Comment I keep reading here how Wikipedia is... a) conspiring against WRH b) doomed to be irrelevant if the WRH article is deleted c) a younger, less popular website than WRH etc. It seems like WP is really an inferior site. I'd think it'd be best for WRH fans to concur with deletion and be rid of this mar on their site. Since there's apparently nothing good about Wikipedia, I can't imagine why a group would fight so hard to be associated with it. GassyGuy 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really believe there are WRH "fans" as such I think that every "thinking" individual is a "fan" of independence and alternative sides of the story, because that's what thinking is all about isn't it, making your own decision. now when wikipedia or people inside wikipedia appear to be trying to stop such independent sites from propagating like say...... [putting it up for deletion a second time in less than a month] people get angry, understand? The point of the comment above is to address the fact that when a human is faced with a choice between a distortion or an obvious lie, and the alternative they will take the alternative, if wikipedia chooses to knowingly digress from alternatives to the "T.V generation" propaganda then it in it's self will doom it's self to second class cheapness, just through the simple principals of the market system and competition. this is a cold hard fact, there will be in the future and already is other online free encyclopedia's if they have more [of all] information and wikipedia keeps "towing the line" then wikipedia will be known as the [fox encyclopedia] of the net.
  
  if you care about wikipedia GassyGuy don't let it happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs)
• Comment I suggest to delete Wikipedia. That'd do it.
• Keep nothing changed in WRH since last time we discussed it, so a deletion would now harm wikipedia and promote WRH as a victim. --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keep it. One of the few sources of reliable and unbiased news on the Internet.
• All the verbiage is bogus. This is all about censorship plain and simple. There is an information war going on! The truth is rare and many want to squelch it. If anyone doubts Wikipedia's political agenda I refer you to the history of their AIPAC entry, which is now resolved (into a mere 75% lies).
• Keep. WhatReallyHappened.com has kept me sane in trying to understand international affairs for the last eight years or so. More than any other website I value it's daily collection of news and commentary. Yes it posts links to articles that are critical of the US and Israeli Administrations. But when you consider the evidence from an intelligent non-imperialist perspective then the criticism is warranted. What really happened with 911? Does anyone still believe that airliners and jet fuel brought down and pulverised three massively sturdy WTC buildings on 911? Burning kerosene cannot melt steel!! Does this tragedy justify invading two sovereign countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians? More recently, who really believes that the IDF's shoot and burn policy in Gaza is a reasonable response to one captured POW soldier? The Israeli Administration just cannot accept that the Palestinian people would vote for a Hamas led democratic government.
• If you follow WhatReallyHappened.com you see the reports day to day from world media that illuminate what is really going on. Unless Wikipedia editors want to distinguish themselves as guardians of Anglo-Zionist propaganda, there is no reason to delete WhatReallyHappened.com. It is a veteran giant among the alternative Internet media sources.
• Before you decide the value of the website, try following the stories for a few weeks and look into the archives. You may find that you gradually come to understand a great deal more about how the world really works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.139.117 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. It's the same as the drudge report, only with more commentary, and not as politically correct :-) . Was very instrumental in showing the scope of the anti-war movement that was suppressed by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.111.68 (talk • contribs)
• "KEEP IT" good stuff. mainstream media is industry driven,flitered garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: Tried to format the AfD entry so it is marginally readable. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WhatReallyHappened is one of the leading news and opinion aggregation web sites on the Internet. If you administrators who are, in effect, the policy makers at Wikipedia intend to provide yet another clear example of how Wikipedia is little more than a biased, agenda-driven web site disguised as a repository of knowledge, then go ahead and delete WhatReallyHappened. Then you can delete Rense and Raw Story Entry and who knows how many others... After you do that then you'll spend the indefinite future in what can only be a futile pursuit, trying to convince the world that deleting content aggregation web sites whose content you sometimes do not approve of is not censorship. Whatreallyhappened certainly qualifies ongrounds of notability. It has won these awards. GeneMosher 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm pretty sure we decided this issue last month. Immediately re-nominating something for deletion is grounds for it to be an automatic keep I believe. I'm sure if the people interested in deleting this article keep nominating it, sooner or later they will succeed. However, there is no clear reason to delete this article, which is generally factual and a reference (I have no idea if the actual site is factual or not, I'm only speaking about the article on wikipedia). There is an article for homestar runner for christ's sake. Ltbarcly 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, there is a perfectly good reason to delete What Really Happened: it fails WP:WEB and nobobdy here has made any attempt to establish how this website meets accepted criteria from the guideline established for web-based content inclusion. Homestar Runner is a bad example Ltbarcly... it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. I was unaware of this site until I read this AfD nomination, and I don't care about US and Israeli/Palestinian politics, so here's a few comments from a disinterested party. I don't see this nomination filled with rampant meatpuppetry, vandalism, and screams of bias going anywhere. This nomination is bound to end up again as a no-consensus. Suggestions for the article: edit out a lot of the unencyclopedic sections (eg. the sprawling list of "quirks"). Compare: Talking Points Memo, a site that surely beats WRH in terms of WP's notability criteria for web-sites, is both smaller and more concise than What Really Happened. –Dicty (T/C) 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  In my opinion, Talking Point Memo doesn't seem to be any more or less significant than WRH.COM. 202.89.180.58 12:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader

  You missed my point. I said nothing about significance, which is impossible to determine, but about notability, for which we have criteria. –Dicty (T/C) 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Given the thoroughly malicious nature of the meatpuppetry and vandalism that has been going on, I have exhausted my store of good faith about the denizens of WRH. I have removed my keep vote. Others have made good points that this site does not meet WP:WEB. –Dicty (T/C) 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. . I don't know what more to say that hasn't already been said. Let me try and just reinforce what seems to be the common idea:
  1. Grounds for non notability? Seems like alot of people are fighting for it...
  2. This site and its listing here is VERY important if only as an example that there is truth out there and someone needs to show it in the light. For those of you who REFUSE to look at the deeper things, the VERY REAL things that make this world go round then I feel very sad for you and angry at the same time because you are part of the problem.
  3. Yes nominating this listing to be deleted in such a short time very much sounds like a personal attack. It reminds me of a spoiled child demanding they get their way. Again...very sad. I can only begin to imagine what your political, personal and religious affiliations are.
  4. Perhaps some of you think this is a conspiracy site. Let me say this. Even conspiracy theories and general stereotypes have roots in truth. Compare WRH to what can be said (no matter how very informative it is) to be a conspiracy site: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/wake_up_america.html
  5. My personal opinion is that the world and particularly the United States is on fire and we are living in unprecedented times. Things have not been this bad, turbulent and corrupt since the collapse of the Roman empire. To add more to it by what really does look like censorship is a real shame. If you want to make a site molded in your opinion then why did you create an encyclopedia site?
     12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) void
• comment We will be standing with the people of wikipedia and aeon until their hopes for freedom and liberty are fulfilled.heil aeon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 08:17:16 (UTC)
• 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 WP:WEB Aeon 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is memory space so tight that these editorial decisions are necessary? If so, I note that wikipedia has an article on the Pennsic War -- which I attend regularly, but which I consider so far less "notable" than a massive, and heavily-trafficked, link to important news stories of the world, as to make it ludicrous to include the fantasy "war" in the face of "tight" memory allocation, instead of the news site. "Notable"? Good grief. Maybe your guidelines for inclusion do need reexamined. Exactly who or what is burdened by the presence of a whatreallyhappened article?--Mellyrn 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)mellyrn
• Delete per Isotope23. Also, the fact that the site itself is campaigning for meatpuppets to comment in this discussion seems to impeach any serious claim of notability of the site. KWH 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I don't like many of the opinions expressed on that website, but it's still very notable because for many many people it's the best political news aggregator. I also don't like that controversial articles get bombed with deletion requests. The former request already had lots of contributors --Enric Naval 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Hey, shouldn't Fark be up for deletion on the same grounds? They are both just sites that have some kind of, uh, links or something on them. I say, if a page has this much controversy, then it must be notable!24.130.196.236 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, no... Fark absolutely meets WP:WEB#1 on the grounds of multiple non-trivial published works. Wired, Toronto Star, et al have done full articles covering Fark explicitly. Can anyone provide evidence that the same non-trivial coverage has been given to What Really Happened?--Isotope23 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep It looks like the notability criteria needs an amendment that takes into account the volume and quality of comments made in defense of a site. I also think that the number of google hits should be considered as well (on my count 343,000 for "whatreallyhappened"). For the time being, and as regards theWP:WEB#1 criteria on multiple non-trivial published works, there were indeed two articles in the Toronto Star by Antonia Zerbisias in 2002 on Rivero's site. Considering that whatreallyhappened.com focuses on highlighting news stories the mainstream media misses, it is surprising that it even achieved that distinction. If the article has flaws, it should be edited, not deleted. Tiamut 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Links to these two articles? I did a bit of searching on google but didn't find them or anything substantial. What I did find is this page[2] which has Michael Rivero stating:

  Antonia Zerbisias wrote an article suggesting that people look deeper into 9-11. Her article mentioned several sites, of which mine was just one.

  Note that WP:WEB#1 states that the web-site in question must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Without having the articles in question in front of me, I'm led to believe that WRH was not, in fact, the subject of Ms. Zerbisias' column, but rather linked from it as one of several possible resources. With regard to your lesser point about amending the policies to include the volume (and quality) of support, in this case the volume of support is a textbook case of meatpuppetry, and the quality has been atrocious: blanking comments, changing votes, setting up soapboxes, and god knows what else. If ever the quality of the support became a criterion, I would despair for the chances of this article. I have a hard time believing that the majority of WRH denizens whose sole contributions are to vote in this AfD have any interest in writing an encyclopedia. –Dicty (T/C) 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the reaction to that initial article which generates subsequent coverage of whatreallyhappened in the Star. Zerbisias in on record stating she received over 20,000 letters in response to the article, overwhelmingly thankful or appreciative. Bnai Brith Canada, however, wrote a press release on 18 November 2002, condemning Zerbisias for promoting "anti-semitic" sites and trying to get her article removed from the paper. (It's no wonder that it's hard to provide evidence for the notability criteria! Authors of controversial subject matter find it hard to get their articles to print - and increasingly, it seems to the Internet public.) She ended up clarifying her position in a subsequent article, ("Judge not fourth (or fifth estate" 19 November 2002)[3], where she zooms in on the debate over anti-semitism specifically in relation to Rivero's site, which is not a passing mention at all. Tiamut 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• What Really happened is one of the most important sites on the Web, bar none. It's no secret that people with an Agenda like AIPAC would like it to go away, and it's also no secret that the Wikipedia editors sympathize with this point of view. You either believe in free speech and independent media, or you don't. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.106.34 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:31:46 (UTC)

• DELETE? THIS IS A QUESTION NOT EVEN TO BE UTTERED IN A FREE KNOWLEDGE FORUM Has Wikipedia forgot its roots? Has it gone the way of free-speech universities and tolerance? Do we really need another fascist summer followed by a dark winter? As I have mentioned in the past, numerous misdeeds (Abu Ghraib, Downing Street Memos, the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, etc.) by the American - and occasionally British - government were exposed months and sometimes YEARS before the "free & independent" mainstream media would touch it. The stench in here's getting pretty bad. I must depart to clearer skies.67.153.236.172 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP!!! If you care about the 'news behind the news' and the truth behind the lies, you should check out WRH daily!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:40:38 (UTC)

• KEEP - it's scary that it's even a question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colinhoho (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:43:26 (UTC)

• Strong keep--The Brain 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 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 WP:WEB, 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. __meco 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Bold textKeep, Bold textContinue, and Bold textStop Polarazing Discussion - Wikipedia is designed to be an online encyclopedia available to all for editing and reading. To choose to no longer list a page due to political slant is contrary to that motto. If an encyclopedia wishes to gain credence through a large source of truthful public information, that information needs to reflect the public. The fact that we are even having this polarazing discussion points to that wikipedia is loosing its focus on expanding the world knowledge encumbered by political manipulation.

Bottom Line: Facts are facts. WRH exists, it's a real website and voice of an important perspective. It should therefore be kept and continued in the worlds freest and largest encyclopedia. --12.161.155.144 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Private Citizen Z

Repaired a major blanking, and moved the above comment from the top of the discussion to the bottom. Where it's supposed to be, people. Thank you. Tony Fox (speak) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep- The site served its readers well in providing links to contextual background information on the "War on Terror" and the relentless PR campaign that led up to the Iraq invasion, something the mainstream media, for whatever reason, did not do. WRH has also linked to countless articles which purported to document anomalies in the events and official narrative of 9/11- another potentially fertile subject in which the mainstream media has shown no interest. WRH is a very notable alternative news site for those who wish to "question everything", and is a threat to those who are afraid of out-of-consensus viewpoints, even if, or perhaps especially if, those viewpoints are closer to the truth than the conventional wisdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isayoldchap (talk • contribs)

Comment - If the sire were NOT relevant, there surely would NOT be this much ink (or electrons) flowing about it. Controversial it may be, but it is sometimes a little light in fairly thick fog !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.164.77 (talk • contribs)

KEEP WRH: ZIONIST CYBERHITMEN WHO ZERO IN ON EVERY ARTICLE OR WEBSITE THAT COMMENTS NEGATIVELY ON ISRAEL SHOULD NOT BE COUNTENANCED--THOMAS KEYES— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas keyes (talk • contribs)

• Comment and now, just to make things more fun... we have anonymous IP User:137.244.215.19 tampering with the opinions here by removing deletions or changing them to keep: [4] & [5]. I will try to merge or contact the originators so they can add back their opinions.--Isotope23 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  That particular user has already been blocked for vandalism. I have restored Tychocat's comment from ths history already. [6]. –Dicty (T/C) 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

  there were a couple of others. I fixed Tom's because it was a simple replace and contacted the other person so they could add back if they so chose.--Isotope23 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - Of course, I'd argue "keep," this entry. Right now, however, I'm not even sure it's worthwhile to debate this argument of whether "What Really Happened" should be kept on Wikipedia anymore. I suggest this because I believe that this problem truly originates in Wikipedia's flawed notability policy which needs objectivity, transparency, and oversight.

To me, notability is extremely tricky; for, it suggests that there are gatekeepers of culture who decide what is popular. Who are the people that determine what is "notable?" Is it the media, the intelligensia, those with power, or the masses? Is popularity determined by an individual, cultural, local, nation or international spheres? Is it indicated if it's pop culture or historical? Is it determined by one's known professional knowledge? Is it determined by one's individual taste or preference?

Although one may argue that the above classifications are valid ways to determine notability, I still believe that it is flawed because there is no objectivity. Almost anyone can nominate a site for deletion on Wikipedia, and therein lies the problem. What one person determines as "notable" may not be "notable" to another person, especially if an individual has not had contact, exposure to, or prior knowledge of the subject or article being nominated for deletion. For example, there are plenty authors, such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Gloria Naylor, or Ursula Hegi, that I am sure that quite a few people on this site have not read, are familiar with, or have heard about. Does this make these individuals non-notable because they are not known to an individual editor or Wikipedian member? They are not "notable" to these editors, but they may be known to a person who is familiar with world literature. What if a person doesn't know about a philosopher like Charles S. Peirce -- one of the founders of American pragmatism? If a person hasn't studied or isn't interested in philosophy, does this make Peirce non notable? I have had this experience myself, where articles I've written -- not so well known to some in American culture, have been nominated for deletion less than a minute after their initial creation -- without the Wikipedian editor taking the time to research, let alone taking the mere five seconds one would need to check Google's search engine to determine if a subject had prior media coverage or newsworthiness.

Another flaw in Wikipedia's notability policy is that there is little transparency. What if a person, organization, or institution has a dislike of a certain subject's inclusion in this "wiki" and wishes to have it removed from the public sphere to stiffle knowledge and to silence debate. One can easily cite Wikipedia's "notability" clause as a specious argument for an article's removal. I would argue that a similar phenomena is already exists and is rampant in corporate-controlled media where international and national news stories are shelved to prevent damage to their bottom-line.

My last argument is there is little oversight. I would have no problem if a page was deleted based on something quantifiable: Wikipedia has not instituted anything measurable in this regard. And, yes, there are ways to determine an entry's popularity - - statistics. Blog sites do this all the time. When I oversaw certain websites, I used free programs like | AXS Visitor Tracking that could do tracking. And even CPANEL has programs that can give individual statistics on which pages get the most traffic. Anyway, that's my two cents.

And lastly, I really object to Wikipedia's use of "meatpuppetry" and the like. It just sounds childish and meanspirited, in my opinion. All individuals have the right to their opinions and if they feel strongly about a subject, they have the right to express it, just as you do. And inspite of how we'd all like to believe we're "independent thinkers," we're all "meatpuppets" to some extent of our desires, cultures or society. American debate has sunk to the level of labelling or slandering groups of people, ideas, and/or subjects in order to "silence" the effectiveness of their opponents' argument. As a result topics, such as this one, that are in need of a serious debate are reduced to the mere superficial. Sarah smiling again 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, personally I don't see this as necessarily a question of vague "notability" of the site. We do have a quantifiable guideline with which to measure web content against: WP:WEB. Whether or not you agree with the the guidelines is a different matter all together, and is probably a more appropriate debate at the actual guidelines. In my opinion, What Really Happened does not meet said guideline (and I've enumerated why above). As for transparency, it's readily available on userpages (sometimes) and if not you can usually get a pretty good idea about a person from their edit history. I have no agenda other than strongly defending my point that we have guidelines for this type of entry, this particular entry does not meet said guidelines base on all evidence provided (and based on the fact that I mucked around on the internet for a while looking for anything that would meet WP:WEB, and nobody has advanced an argument explaining how it meets the guidelines. If Wikipedia has guidelines that are not met, what good are they?--Isotope23 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: added a border to demarcate the entire comment. –Dicty (T/C) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep An encyclopedia is not an item to be maintained by deletions. Obviously this site is inhabited by shills for the pro-war government. This was apparent in the Vietnam era but really unseen by the young in this decade. Think back to the War on Drugs - a propaganda war only, until the supply stopped - now NATO is the supplier/protector of over 90% of the world's opium. Wiki will sink into the same marshes of baloney after its successful hijacking occuring now. It was interesting for a while but it won't survive unopposed efforts at thought control. The internet was designed as a military system, and, as such, will interpret censorship as an outage and simply route around it. The designers knew that centralized control is a failed strategy (no not al gore). Ever think about a policy on NO DELETIONS ? Galileo and Copernicus would have loved that. After all, they were right in the beginning and won in the end, and its been the 'authorities' that first wanted G and C's work deleted, but today want their true role in thistory deleted. In the final analysis, where will wiki stand, and, by the way, what does the title 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' really mean ? The truth is never decided by votes. When my children were very young watching a football game with me, they wanted to know which team I was 'voting' for ......... of course I had to tell them that votes only mattered in an election.........silly me 24.73.33.65 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the website were not that notable, it would not be worth nominating for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.95.236.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 16:48:46 (UTC)

Interresting comment but faulty. This article is being nommed becasue it fails WP:WEB and is starting to head into the WP:NOT policy as well. Wikipedia is not a advertising service nor is it a place for POV and soapboxing. Aeon 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep - this is one of the most useful, informative websites out there. It would merit inclusion simply on the basis of its huge traffic numbers, and the very fact that this discussion page is so lively shows that there is more interest and interaction around the topic than most Wikipedia entries will ever have

FlyingCoyote 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Isotope23. Personally I'm a little disturbed by the number of Anon contributions to this discussion. My understanding however, is that Anon comments are discounted. --Doc Tropics 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Not to memntion that one took a swing at my user page. Aeon 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, per FlyingCoyote --Guinnog 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're trying to delete a news/opinion site from being publicied. Nice one Wikipedia...Are you taking lesons from the Bush admin or being controlled by them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.38.250 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 17:10:42 (UTC)

• strong keep - WRH.com has been a source of many worthwhile articles for me over the past few years, and it provides info that the MSM generally overlooks and/or is afraid to touch. It is truly useful. There need to be more sites out there which tell the truth about Israel, as too many of us Americans are petrified of being labeled "anti-Semites".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.63.75 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep. Those who do not agree can rebut but NO to censorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomfighter2 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - are we able to tell when the last time the WP.WEB criteria was modified? 67.78.247.59 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - being disturbed by the number of 'anonymous' contributions is an example of opinion that can be construed as 'editorial bias'. The source of commentary is not relevant, the content is. Now, Wikipedia is either an unbiased source of general information, or it's not. Please make up your minds, lest your credibility continue to suffer self-inflicted foot-wounds 67.78.247.59 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - At the risk of feeding the trolls I'd like to point out that the source of commentary is very relevant when it appears to be a massive assault by sockpuppets. Rather than waste further words on this page I'm asking an Admin to investigate these "contributions". --Doc Tropics 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree! Is there anyway to protect this page so anons can't edit it for the time being, until the issue is settled? Aeon 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (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 WP:WEB. 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. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Obvious free speach issues aside, WHR is not a an anti-semetic site and if wikipedia is to be truely be the resource it wants to be then it can't delete articles simply becomes some people consider it offensive. -soulinite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulinite (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 18:04:14 (UTCUTC)

  Comment: This is a bad faith characterisation of this debate. The article was nominated for deletion because the site is not notable, not because someone considers the site to be anti-semetic or offensive. –Dicty (T/C) 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment This may be rhetorical... but is it too much to ask even the anon IP's to actually go back and read the reasonings being offered for deletion before spouting off nonsense?--Isotope23 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Yes, it's too much to ask. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - website is notable and popular in conspiracy theory fandom, said fandom being quite notable in the mainstream press (even if with scorn). Just because some people may disagree with the types of people the site is popular with does not mean it's "non-notable". - EmiOfBrie 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This might be a fools errand to point these out, but a few things that might need to be made clear:
  • Wikipedia is not voting to delete this website. That's not within Wikipedia's power.
  • The website will continue to exist and plenty of people will visit it, whether it is in Wikipedia or not. The website does not have an inalienable right to be included in Wikipedia for purposes of publicity or advertisement.
  • Nobody advocates deleting this encyclopedia entry because of the content of the website or the news items and opinions there.
  • This is not a question of whether you like the website, or how often you visit it. It is also not a question of whether there exist other articles in Wikipedia which do not meet notability criteria (if there are, they should be brought up for discussion as well, but that is not a reason to end this discussion.)
  • This is a simple question of the pre-existing Wikipedia guidelines for whether a website should be the topic of an encyclopedic article, and whether this website meets them.
  • The guidelines can be read by clicking on the link WP:WEB. If you think this article should be Kept, then make an argument as to how the website meets these criteria. A general discussion of notability and why Wikipedia has these guidelines can also be found at Wikipedia:Notability. KWH 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously a bunch of new users have been encouraged to come "vote" to keep this article. It doesn't meet wp:web, so it should be deleted. More importantly, I'm the Mayor, and I say delete. Mayor Westfall 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The criteria regarding multiple published works has been met. See my earlier entry above under Very Strong Keep. The policies also need to be changed. They are elitist, as is the tone of many of the posters here who made derogatory remarks about without Wikipedia user names who were posting here in support of the site. WRH is notable, even under the policies currently in place. People who want less censorship here need to get involved in drafting policy. Unfortunately, it is often those with a predeliction for power who get into that game, inscribing gobbledy gook with legalese loopholes that can be selectively invoked to discount entries on mere technicalities. I just want to remind Wiki members of one incredibly important existent guideline that mentions the importance of following the spirit and not the letter as regards the inclusion of a given page. Deletes are supposed to be a last resort. This site is clearly notable. The article can be developed, as has been since the last proposed delete. To delete now will be evidence of extreme bias and frankly counterproductive when so many new people have been exposed to Wikipedia and could form a completely wrong opinion about it based on the views of a hypervocal, rather disdainful minority. People, the policy needs to be improved! I urge those who care to join up, and get to it. Tiamut 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Care to provide a link to these 2 Toronto Star articles? Searching the Toronto Star archives for "Michael Rivero" or "What Really Happened" produces no articles pertaining to either Rivero [7] or the website [8].--Isotope23 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No problem a providing an exact date and headline even: 17 November 2002, "Pursue the Truth about Sept. 11" [9] and the next Sunday, after receiving 20,000 letters from readers, with only 2 expressing serious concerns about www.whatreallyhappened.com, she wrote about it again, devoting the entire article to Rivero's site (though I cannot find the headline for that article). Zerbisias also mentioned whatreallyhappened.com in another article on 29 April 2003 in "Star Scoop Exposes Both Sides of the Story. [10]. If you want more examples, I will try to track them down, but I think that three articles in the Toronto Star meets the multiple publishing requirement. Tiamut 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a passing grade on Notability to me... - EmiOfBrie 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unable to read any information about WRH from these links. Could you explain how you were able to do it? __meco 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the contents of both articles, having read them when they were initially published in 2002. In order to see the full text at the links provided (the original primary sources) you have to pay for the service. But if you do google searches on the titles of the articles or on zerbisias and rivero, you will see disucssions of the articles at many different blogs and perhaps even a reprint of one them. It should also be noted that whatreallyhappened.com is is linked by over 2253 sites according to its Alexa information [11], including World Net Daily [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22518] who quotes it as an important source in an article on the Oklahoma bombing, and Robert Fisk [12] who finds Rivero's views on the site to be notable enough to be included with the likes of Arundhati Roy, Ralph Nader, and the Dalai Lama. In summary once again, whatreallyhappened.com has been proven over the course of this discussion to have 1) been the subject of a 18 November press release by B'nai Brith Canada accusing it of anti-semitism, 2) the main subject of at least one and arugably three articles in the Toronto Star, 3) a primary source for World Net Daily story on the Oklahoma bombings, 4) an important source on 9/11 in the opinion of Robert Fisk, and 5) the recipient of the Democratic Media Award 2005. As such, it meets two, if not three of criteria listed in theWP:WEB policy. The resistance to recognize this despite hours of efforts from those who wish to see the page remain and documentation of the resources listed throughout this talk page is very disturbing and contrary to Wikipedia policies regarding deletion as a last resort only when efforts to improve articles have failed. Since the last nomination, improvements have been made to the article and research appearing on this talk page can be incorporated into the article to futher strengthen it. Tiamut 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep - useful, long-established website, gives its sources, known to be a prime information provider in its field of specialization. Make sure the article is neutral just like any other and it's all good. Two deletion requests in as many months? No wonder the conspiracy nuts are coming here. We're practically baiting them. Inky 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

66.168.122.169 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) WRH is a more informative source than all the network news combined. I found it without google or wikipedia so i say go ahead and delete it who cares. i never thought of Wikipedia worth a crap anyway so whos really the "not notable" here anyway, without WRH i wouldnt havent found this site to tell u where u can take this whole conversation.66.168.122.169 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The site gets a lot of trafic and is used by many people of different political stripes. The site is extremely useful as a repository of news stories that often don't get the attention they should. How popular does a site have to be before it's considered notable? Serpent-A 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To note that some Wiki 'editors' desire "to protect this page so anons can't edit it for the time being, until the issue is settled?" shows that these editors fear opinions they do not agree with. That is editorial bias, and it goes against everything the idea of the Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. Your contention that the site in question does not meet WP:WEB is an outright falsehood. You are either engaging in selective censorship, or you're being pressured to delete this reference by others who fear what the site stands for. How pitiful...64.193.3.46 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment We don't fear your opinions, It was suggested to cut down on the meat/sock puppetry that is now effecting this AfD (Which is what it is, This article was nomed for AfD and the site in question posted a link to the AfD causing the readers of said site to come over and try to save it. that is 'Meatpuppetery in a nut shell, see WP:SOCK for the details and scroll down to the bottom under heading New users working together, Offical Policy against Meat/sock puppetry on AfD's and other articles). And it doesn't matter in anycase. Most of these IP comments will most likey be striked out anyways, only the ones with a NPOV feel to them and site reasons that the article should stay will most likey be counted and considered. Aeon 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, 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. :) Inner Earth 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 WP:WEB criteria as the recipient of of the Democratic Media Award [13] 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 WP:WEB 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 WP:WEB 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.Tiamut 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment' Again, your contention that the site does not meet WP:WEB 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.64.193.3.46 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to check whether it meets WP:WEB and I was unable to. Would you be so kind as to help me in this by pointing out which criteria are met and how? __meco 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment On 17 November 2002, the website was cited as an example of a 'carefully considered, well crafted and very compelling' website on 9/11 in an article in the Toronto Star[14]. 20,000 letters came in to Zerbisias supporting the article that was printed, many expressing support for Rivero's website. B'nai Brith accused Zerbisias of promoting anti-semitism in press release condemning the article which referred to some of the content of Rivero's site. [15] She refused to consider having the article removed and wrote another article on 19 November totally devoted to examining Rivero's site against the charge of anti-semitism [16]. These are examples of multiple non-trivial published works. You only have to meet one of three criteria to be considered "notable". This story should be included in the article which should obviously not be deleted. Tiamut 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WhatReallyHappened.com is a good source of NEWS and information not found very often on the web. Anyone whe reads the site regularly can see there is no anti-semetic agenda however it may appear at first glance.

steve

Delete. This site is a joke. Vitriol 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I have voted KEEP, for the reason that any researcher, student of contemporary events would want to have this type of site easily findable, whether they agreed with any perspectives or opinions expressed on WRH. If you suppress this site by not allowing a Wikipedia reference to it, then you are guilty of attempting to hide and obscure this content which is an intellectual crime of the first order.24.1.11.49 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the above IP already "voted" Keep once.[17] Also, since the above IP also doesn't understand why anonymous or "first edit" accounts are normally given less weight in a deletion discussion[18], see WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. Of course, I only bring this up because I am a representative of the International Zionist Conspiracy for Suppressing Truthful Articles From Wikipedia (Local 192). KWH 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, This IP is a ZIONIST. We have nothing to fear from an open, fair discussion, therefore I do not over-react to WRH coverage which does not always show Israel in the most favorable light, a small part of my reason for voting to KEEP, even though I am only a lowly "one edit wonder". 24.1.11.49 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Despite the hordes of anonymous minions showing up here at the frothing beck and call of the site in question, there's nothing really to distinguish this from thousands of other non-notable conspiracy theory sites. Hell, it just looks like a link aggregator. Big whoop. Cyde↔Weys 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, clearly you and others expressing this misconception are not familiar with the site, it has notable original summaries and exposition of topics. 24.1.11.49 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Trust me, the IZCSTAFW is quite familiar with the site, otherwise we would not have activated so many of our sleeper agents to make sure that it is expunged from Wikipedia. As everyone knows, if the website doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, then nobody will learn the truth about how we control the world. How's the weather outside Dallas? KWH 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is that sarcasm your best effort in support of deletion? I have mode no arguments or comments suggesting a Zionist conspiracy, I have said exactly the opposite. Glad to see you diagnostic utilites are working for you.24.1.11.49 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Meh, you're no fun. But let's talk about your comment, "If you suppress this site by not allowing a Wikipedia reference to it, then you are guilty of attempting to hide and obscure this content which is an intellectual crime of the first order." Would you say the same thing in a letter to Encyclopedia Brittanica, telling them why they should write an article about this website? Because you understand, this is an encyclopedia we're working on, and though we hope it will be bigger and better than Brittanica, it's got to have some standards.

  How would the truth be suppressed if readers of an encyclopedia missed out on a gem like "The main page of WRH is the news blog, featuring links to news articles selected by Rivero with some commentary." or "To the left side of the main blog are links to articles written by Rivero or posted on pages belonging to WhatReallyHappened.com, advertisements, links to archives of items posted onto the blog in the past, a search bar and a link to the WRH store."

  Or is that just a bunch of filler, because there's really nothing of encyclopedic interest to say about this website? KWH 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, it should not try to be the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It is however a reference point for people like myself who are researching information and opinion on current events. I don't agree with Grudge, but I would not want that site to be taken off the internet, and I would want Wikipedia to have an appropriate reference to it. You may not know this but students of contemporary events like myself, do want these type of sites to be well known and covered by other internet reference publications, even if we do not always agree with the content or perspectives of the authors we want to know what the POV is, and what views are being expressed. That is an important aspect of freedom of speech.

  You haven't answered the question; what is the critical research material or coverage that a student/researcher would be missing out on? It sounds like you think that this site has a right to be in Wikipedia just to make sure it gets as much publicity as the Drudge Report - and that's NOT what Wikipedia is for! KWH 03:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have in fact answered the question. The criteria is not and should not be that Wikipedia will only cover a site if and only if it has some entirely unique critical research material, which is the standard you are attempting to forward at this point. You should know by now that a good number of people like myself rely on that site, among others for information about contemporary events. It is unique in its compilation and it is convenient in that sense for someone researching the information even if WRH is not the original source of all of the material being researched. Again, though WRH does have some original and interesting summaries and exposition. There is no valid rational for suppressing the article on this site. And again, repeating my first comment, given the ferocity of the pro-deletion opinions being expressed, apparently those commenters are attempting to suppress the Wikipedia article on WRH for political or ideological reasons. If the site was entirely trivial in that sense, would it raise so much commentary? Obviously it would not.24.1.11.49 03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, when I said critical research material, etc., I was just picking a few words out of your original comment. But I think it ought to be obvious to you that Wikipedia does not have the power to delete this site from the internet, and obviously WRH got along fine before someone tried to create an encyclopedia article about it, and obviously will get along fine without it. And no, believe it or not, there is no cabal, this is not a conspiracy, Zionist or otherwise; I'm just talking, same as you. I also didn't pick up on anyone advocating deletion for political or ideological reasons. (although there are plenty of paranoid folks claiming so)
    • But let's try another tact on this - if tomorrow, Rivero suddenly starts posting links to hardcore pornography on WRH, or reviews of Harry Potter books written in Esperanto - that would be out of character, right? That's not what the site's about. It's the same way with Wikipedia. If it's not encyclopedic, that's not what the site's about. That's why we'll have an article about World War II, but not someone's grandfather who served in WWII, unless that grandfather did something notable (and verifiable from reliable sources). However, just about anything or anyone, regardless of their objective value, or whether they are good or evil, can have an article if it manages to clearly meet our standards of notability, and if the community consensus (this sort of discussion) is in favor of it. KWH 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT to finally answer the question.

Whatreallyhappened.Com IS VERY notable, since it was the first major website, (run by a steadfast Republican), that discussed the distinct possibility that the Bush Administration's plans to start foreign wars, were for no reasons apart from providing exhorbitant profits for Halliburton et al, and preserving America's Entente Cordiale with fair-weather allies: Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

When practically the entire "mainstream media" and virtually all of the (supposedly) opposition Democratic Party, were swooning over Mr. Bush, and giving a verbal rubber-stamp to his Woodrow Wilson-esque foreign odysseys; whatreallyhappened.com was the only conservative, pro-Republican, online community that presented an opportunity for peaceful dissent.

In essence, the website in question provided the ONLY "speaker's corner" to the millions of conservative, pro-Republican, Americans who otherwise would have had no outlet; by virtue of BOTH chastisement by other right-leaning media AND reluctance to stand with left-leaning, non-mainstream, media.

This article should not be deleted, any more than any article on pro-solidarity media in 1980s Poland, anti-apartheid media in 1990s South Africa, or the Voice of America, should be.

I apologize, Dicty, but I must respectfully disagree. The pro-deletion side IS largely, (though not entirely), driven by people who wish to censor opinions that they do not agree with. As one good-faith editor addressing another, I implore you to consider how history might one day look back on whatreallyhappened.com. That is, assuming history is ever given that chance. Pine 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

MMIE: (sorry did not mean to make it look like Pine posted this) Was the Article on WRH really burning up that many of Wiki's resources to necessitate deletion? I love both websites and it causes me a good deal of dissonance to have to take any kind of sides between the two.

207.224.92.111 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Keep.

"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

I quote the above because whether the article does or does not obey the strict letter of wikipedia's policies should not be exclusive grounds for deletion. That Whatreallyhappened is such a notable if controversial site in the alternative media community is probably justification for having at least some type of article on it, even if only a stub or less than perfect article, to avoid accusations or proof of bias. That there is high risk, if not evidence, of a desire to censor the existance/links to Whatreallyhappened should be grounds for ruling in it's favor. Being marked twice in one month is suspicious. Consensus is fundamentally unobtainable when there is sock puppetry, therefore lack of consensus shouldn't be reason for a second or third attempt at deletion. Rather it should be evidence of McCarthyism.

Mark the article as needing cleanup, more references, more neutrality, and other points of view. It should remain unmerged because it has a separate existance from Michael Rivero himself, just like Microsoft is a separate article from Bill Gates. Indeed it is far more likely a searcher will be searching for Whatreallyhappened the site than Michael Rivero the person. There needs to be an article here, just not a poorly written one. Let people volunteer to fix it, then move on. Nobody will waste time rewriting it if they expect their hard work and research to be deleted in a third call for removal come the end of July. 207.224.92.111 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Encapsulated the anon multi-line comment. Kevin_b_er 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 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/ is "No website configured at this address" No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. All of its claims of notablity are dubious. Kevin_b_er 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment' I have already voted, but I would like to address the above comment. BankIndex.com has since went down but there are archives of the article http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARCHIVE/BankIndexPart2.htm. Dubious or not, they meet the "criteria", which itself seems dubious because it's common sense that a website like whatreallyhappened.com is notable. The notability article first states that it is a guidline, but then becomes a set of criteria. So are they rules of thumb or a gospel to be followed? As for people who don't like anonymous comments, I'd just like to point out that just because it's anonymous doesn't mean we don't have accounts on here. Perhaps we don't want to reveal our identity in a controversial topic? 202.89.180.58 07:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This may need to be closed early per WP:SNOW, as this discussion is getting way out of hand. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that extends to these AFD debates. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment So we should delete it because the discussion is getting "way out of hand" or it has no chance of surviving anyway? Because other than the meatpuppets and the politically baised editors, that's where the real discussion is happening 202.89.180.58 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Actually, never mind, as if it were closed now, there would be no consensus, and the debate would just be reopened anyway. I'm withdrawing my argument. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't someone request some arbitration? Vitriol 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This site fails WP:WEB no evidence has been established as to how it fulfills it Ydam 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence has been presented for fulfillment...see comments by Tiamut about a couple page scrolls back. - EmiOfBrie 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have seen these comments that you're refering to and I have been unable to read any information about WRH on the provided links. __meco 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not even at http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html ? If the site won an award also awarded to mainstream media outlets, that really seems like a clear cut case of notability. - EmiOfBrie 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can find WRH there – as a two line generic recommendation, listed as one of 101 entries. __meco 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand the reticence here at all, but am willing to provide more source material for the Toronto Star articles cited (remember, there are more examples here than just those. Please see my additional comment on today's Google News searches posted below). The evidence that at least two of the Toronto Star articles deal with WRH is in these articles can be found in this article, World Exclusive to GoOff.com with Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com[19], and at the blog the OmBudsGod! under an entry dated November 20, 2002[20] where the B'nai Brith press release on the Zerbisias' column and its reference to WRH is partially quoted. Shall I come up with more or can we concede that the criteria has been met? Tiamut 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the main article for links to the full text of two of the Toronto Star articles cited. I have added them along with a section describing the controversy that emerged from the first mention of WRH in Zerbisias' original article on 9/11.Tiamut 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP' I read WRH regularly and find it an invaluable counterweight to the MSM. The arguments based on WP:WEB all hinge on the meaning of the term "non-trivial", which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The mere fact that the first AfD didn't take is testament to the non-triviality of the site; I very much doubt that my blog would score a similar victory. Nokilli 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Isotope23. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:WEB --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Also, a page the AFD of which attracts so many anonymous rantings cannot possibly be notable. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article does not fail WP:WEB. A number of references have been cited throughout that prove the website meets at least two of the three criteria listed. The refusal to accept this will only lend further credence to the views expressed in this article, Fake Encyclopedia Wikipedia Deletes Alt Media[21], which appears as one of three articles in today's Google News when conducting a "whatreallyhappened" search. Tiamut 09:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is also worth noting that a search for "Michael Rivero" in Google News produces at least four articles at FreeMarket News.com, three of which feature content from WRH. These are: Camera Piracy Tech Developed [22], A Dime's Worth Between GOPs & Dems [23], and Vets Data Theft Looking Worse [24]. WRH is credited as the source that brought these issues to the attention of Free Market News. These are just three examples of multiple non-trivial published works on WRH by a third party that can be added to all the other examples listed above. Is more evidence required? Or can I get back to editing and building upon other worthy articles that require attention, rather than merely fending off attacks to delete and destroy what is a clearly relevant and notable inclusion to this online encyclopedia. Tiamut 10:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have already 'voted' to keep but I wanted to cite the following excerpt from the top of WP:WEB: 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. WP:WEB 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! Earpol 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Keep it, it passes.there is no world. 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 14:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:WING. -- Avi 14:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this fails that. WRH got plenty of Google hits already without having to resort to Wiki to boost its Google numbers - EmiOfBrie 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Jesus christ, what is this? This probably shoul be a hint that something is not as it should be! Ok, to my own arguements. I do agree with the above sentiment that WP:WEB needs to be worked at. i mean, we have a full article on Goatse.cx, but we are going to delete this? This site has a RESPECTABLE alexa rating of 10,711, compare to the #1 Shi'a site according to yaho: Al-Islam.org, it gets only 50,562. Rafed.net, THE biggest Shi'a site has 14000 I have heard about the site lots of times without have tried going to it, it is often refered to in the underground news media. It is linked to by 2,253 OTHER sites according to Alexa. Its just wrong to delete this, the numbers talk for themeselves. If having 130 reviews at Amazon.com does not pass notability, then what does?--Striver 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom gidonb 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DELETE DELETE DELETE: Rivero is an anti-semite piece of trash and so is his website, it has no business being referenced on wikipedia!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.174.219.91 (talk • contribs) 14:49, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

Comment Following this train of to its logical conclusion leads us to delete Adolf Hitler and perhaps Osama bin Laden. What good would that do? Earpol 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It is essentialy blog (and text of article describes it just as a personal blog!). Why don't we have articles about every somewhat notable blog? -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Why do we have any articles on Blogs at all? I can't understand how a Blog would ever be considered a proper subject for an encyclopedia. --Doc Tropics 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I cannot understand this objection. Blogs are explicitly mentioned content covered by the WP:WEB policy and rightly so, since blogs are a huge and growing phenomenon. The rights and responsibilities of bloggers as journalists is a notion gaining legislative ground in many places around the world (including recently, California). The refusal of some parties to concede that the policy on notability under which this article was nomiated for deletion has been evidentially met over and over again is simply bizarre. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a stuffy hardcover encyclopedia. It's a revolutionary format on a revolutionary medium and its content should reflect important trends in the cyber-reality that makes it very existence possible. Wikipedia is in many ways a kind of collective blog, though taken to another level, where people can interact with one another as equals, exchange knowledge and build a peer-checked resource that can cover an unlimited amount of subject matter because it exists in cyberspace; and as such, it should resist aspiring to be a dusty encyclopedic volume on an office shelf that nobody ever bothers to pull down and look into since it is so out-of-date and so out-of-touch with present realities. No one is forcing anybody to love, feature or visit this page, except those working for its deletion. Let those interested in improving it work on doing so. Tiamut 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I understand the points you've made, and I respect your position even though we differ. My comment above was just sounding off about my personal opinion; I didn't mean it to seem like a representation of, or commentary on, current policy. --Doc Tropics 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He is sayin "what is wrong with a blog?" ppl, c'mon, we have goatse.cx, but not this? goatse its not even a blog, its a insult to the eyes. --Striver 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:WEB. I've tried very hard to find something in WP:WEB to allow me to push for keep. I tried to view the Toronto Star article, but I'm unwilling to pay for it. I did read the followup, where the author retracts her listing. I view the original article and this retraction as failing WP:WEB 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 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. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you did not address any of the points i raised in my keep vote, i woul appreciate if you did that. --Striver 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I got a headache before I got to your comments, and stopped reading carefully. Sorry. As I said, I tried hard to find some way within the framework for Wikipedia to argue for keeping it. It is simply not there. The number of reviews on Amazon is essentially useless (self-selection and subject to ballot-stuffing). Possibly Alexa ratings are useful, but they are not currently part of the criteria. Maybe that should be changed. As it stands now, it fails WP:WEB. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits to article KwH, I accept that the use of "attacking" was possibly POV and the edit that you carried out, particularly the follow-up edit, likely helped to enrich the article. (N.B. I do find it strange that you would spend time editing an article you have voted to delete. Why bother if it is so non-notable?) In your edit summary, however, you accuse me of misquoting OmBudsGod.com, when in fact I do not quote them, but rather had provided a link to the blog since it holds a direct quote from Zerbisias in her initial response to the B'nai Brith press release, that I had quite briefly and accurately paraphrased in the original edit, I might add. Please do not make baseless accusations of "misquoting." While I make mistakes sometimes, I edit in good faith and to try faithfully represent the diverse sources I cite. Cheers! Tiamut 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon researching the claim, I found a link to Damien Penny's blog (which is mentioned by OmbudsGod). IIRC, the original text claimed that Zerbisias "stood by her reporting" at first, when the Penny blog revealed that phrase came from an open letter to WRH from Zerbisias which was sent after her second article criticizing the site. Zerbisias stated that she refused to retract the original story, but this was in the context of her responding to WRH readers who were furiously emailing her after the second story and alleging that she must have been pressured by The Star to repudiate WRH (which she denied being pressured). She stood by the thrust of her original story (that alternate causes of 9/11 should be investigated) but did not stand by WRH whatsoever other than as quoted ("the good parts are ruined by the hateful sections"). I'll give a copy of the link to Daimnation later if you like.

I apologize if you take it personally, but taken in toto the section seemed to be a misread or 'misquote' of the entire situation as I understood it from further research - I was referring to the content, not you personally. Also, bear in mind that OmbudsGod and Penny slightly misrepresent the situation themselves, since they accuse Zerbisias and the ombudsman of the paper of anti-semitism anyways, so the misquote is partially theirs.

And to the extent that I enriched an article which I favor deleting... the fact is that I researched the matter to understand why Zerbisias mentioned the site in two columns, and having done so, I have no reason to withhold that information from others. I still think that Zerbisias' mention is the very definition of 'trivial coverage'. KWH 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just to review KwH, I had written that, "Ms. Zerbisias responded by standing by her reporting (See November 20, 2002 entry of the blog OmBudsGod! [25]). She did, however, retract her support for the WRH site in a subsequent article [ "Judge not the Fourth (or Fifth) Estate". The Toronto Star. November 19, 2002. ]." I do not see how this is a misquote or a misrepresentation of the link I provided, but would defintely appreciate having a look at the DamianPenny link you cited, or something even more authoritative. If Zerbisias' statement was a response to WRH readers, and not the B'nai Brith press release, it would be useful to the WRH article, definitely increasing the notability of the site. It would constitute evidence of WRH being an effective rallyer of 9/11 skeptics that can pressure the mainstream media to respond to the site and its readers concerns. Tiamut 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't say that you misquoted OmbudsGod, I said that it was a misread of the entire situation, capisce? here is the link where Damian Penny talks about the open letter, but I don't think it means what you wish it did. KWH 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Jeez this page is long and the arguments are getting vitriolic. Delete because it fails WP:WEB 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). Batmanand | Talk 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And why is 11,000 not notable? I argue that 11,000 is plenty of notable for a non-maintream site, just compare it to the alexa rating of the Shi'a sites (Al-Islam.org has 50 000 and Rafed.net has 11000), or any other non-major religion or denomination. --Striver 18:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting nasty all right. I have said this page should be locked and not updated past closure. Now we'll see why. I would like to note that TedE, having today weighed in favor of deletion, gutted my article on The Intruder. Fancy that, of all the edits on Wikipedia, he comes after mine. Doesn't seem to be a film expert either, based on his edit history. My first basic article. And I've written the admin of WRH describing why his entries are self-defeating, able to be construed as racist, and that he's flat wrong on a number of things, particularly history. Further, I believe in making only one comment, not bandying things about, now TedE has me making two. I don't like that. Now look here, there's a lot not to like about WRH, but the evidence for deletion from Wikipedia ain't here. And I don't usually stick my nose in any business except democracy business, which is what we got going on here. Don't drag me in personally by stalking my edits, I'm the expert on them, not anybody else. Very unprofessional, TedE. Very. About worthy of a formal complaint, the proof for arbitrariness is in the nature of your edit. Want to go for it? I'm in the mood, now. Roukan 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Here is the link to get you started: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. What I did with The Intruder was to fix formating, add wikilinks, deleted your signature on the article, and took out what I considered to be original research. Wikipedia does not publish reviews, no matter how well written by an expert they are. While you are at it, you might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a blog. The rules are different. I have already written to you on your Talk page, which is a better forum. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, If you have a problem with Ted Roukan, take it to request for arbitration or an admin. AfD for a completely separate article isn't the place to air you grievences.--Isotope23 20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Ted. Who's Ted? Any remark on this Afd after closure isn't right, and I think it was reasonable to say that Ted was cued to my article directly from here, so I responded here, because it is part of this story. If you had said nothing, Isotope, I would not write this, but when you say I have a problem with "Ted", it can sound like my problem with the edit is personal. Uh-uh. All stems from failure to lock. I have answered his answer on my talk page, taking a cue from him. I think the admin requirements he lists on his talk page are quite admirable, and after careful reading I am convinced he believes in them. This is a hot issue for some people, not much for me, frankly, as long as I get my one bit in, which is what it should have been left at, so momma don't care. Now take a cue from me, admins. Lock this page at the point when the decision was reached, so the record is not subsequently fouled by too much errata occurring outside the meaningful time frame. It starts to look like an effort to create a new paradigm, regardless what is actually happening. In this case reality doesn't matter, it's a matter of what it starts to look like. If you let it go on much more, and subsequently lock it at the earlier point like I suggest, why, anybody can say things like, hey, this isn't going our way, let's hide under Roukan's suggestion. You've got both sides to this discussion taking notice that this continues, too. Dicty and I were the first to flag it, the instant we discovered it was open. Like I said, reality of what is happening here shouldn't matter, because the decision is closed, but if you don't lock it, anything can happen, anything can be said about it, and I can see unintended damage accruing. If the discussion wasn't locked, Ted wouldn't have remarked here, he wouldn't have potentially had a commitment to a point of view in his mind doing edits a little while later, at least I'd have been convinced at that time that it didn't matter, and approached the edit with him, as we have now done. None of this would be possible if the thing was locked. And there's likely to be more damage, too. Heck all discussions should be locked once the decision is reached. It's obvious. It did take people a thousand years riding horses before somebody threw a saddle on one. Do we have to wait that long to adopt an obvious procedure? Roukan 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Roukan, it appears you think this decision is closed... which is erroneous. This Articles for deletion discussion is still active and ongoing. It was nominated June 29th and as the AfD process runs about 5 days. This will not be locked until an admin makes a decision based on the disussion here. Perhaps you are confusing this with the Previous AfD which closed on a no consensus May 28?--Isotope23 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• not-this-again-Keep per my keep on last AfD. Despite the plethora of personal attacks on Wikipedia(ns) in these AfDs by members of the site, that doesn't change that the site seems notable.-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable troll magnet/conspiracy theorist blog. At some point I tried to improve it but it's not worth it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Isotope23. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)d
• strong keep: Quite notable. Ombudsman 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:WEB--MONGO 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This isn't notable, should be moved to WP:BJAODN. There's a certain amount of vitriol going on. --Sunholm(talk) 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It's also the best source for pro-Palestinian information ---don1one
• Comment - still not notable, don1one. But I've copied it to your userspace for you at User:Don1one/What Really Happened for your personal use. --Sunholm(talk) 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

comment I think having it moved to teh userspace is a good idea. That way both sides kind of get what they want. The articl estill remains on Wikipedia but it is deleted form the Main Space. Aeon 00:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, 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 WP:WEB) DejahThoris 06:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:WEB and per all the keep votes. — getcrunk what?! 15:06, 4 July 2006 (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.