Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Conservapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: A school project Wiki with no actual claims of notability. Fails

• Keep: I entirely disagree with this accusation. This is outrageous... the
  WP:V? I am expecting a prompt explanation for this. VeniVidiVici007 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There isn't any "Demopedia page." There's an article about the Democratic Underground, which is an online community with approximately a thousand times as many members as Conservapedia, and the article briefly mentions Demopedia in passing as one of many features available to the community.

The demand to delete "conservapedia" is a demand for a censorship. Why delete something that of interest and use to some? Conservapedia has over ten times the entries as

Demopedia

, which is featured on Wikipedia without complaint. Conservapedia is probably growing a thousand times faster, too.

Demopedia is not "featured on Wikipedia." Demopedia has no article as such. All it has is a brief mention in an article about a website with ninety thousand members. See above. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry

Cyborg feminism, Marxist feminism

, etc.

There is a double-standard by liberals demanding to censor conservative entries. If successful, this illustrates the bias well. Andysch 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]

It is false to claim ten times as many articles. You were comparing Total Conservapedia articles versus New Since July Demopedia articles, not a valid comparison. Hu 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Obviously non-notable, fails
  personal attacks there fyi. On Wikipedia, you don't demand. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Split Infinity,
    Wikipedians and no offense was intended. VeniVidiVici007 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy delete - no substantial assertion of notability. So tagged. As for
  Demopedia, it's one paragraph in an article on a notable organisation. Feel free to get rid of it if you wish. MER-C 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for now: Maybe raise another AfD later depending on how it progresses and delete it then if need be. They just got going about three weeks ago. They have 1500 articles, which is small, but not insignificant. I think Wikipedia should extend the benefit of doubt to competitors, in the spirit of fairness. Wikipedia will not suffer from a little competition, especially since they are avowedly Christian and have two flaws: one, they are biased and non-neutral point of view; two, they do not have an adequate means of filtering since they are very accepting of just about any kind of edit (may change later). It is so new that no third parties can be expected to have written about it, but they have potential. Technically it may fail on the Web criterion for the moment, but it is verified: it does exist and it is growing. The Conflict of Interest / Vanity charge is bogus, but even though I advocate keeping for now, we must still edit the article stringently, as I have been. So I say, relax the keep/delete criteria in their favor, but scrutinize a little more carefully in compensation. Hu 05:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the seven Google hits don't persuade me of its being "very well known" -- quite the contrary. If it becomes famous and covered in reliable third-party sources at a later date, then is the time to have an article on it. Only three of those Google hits are neither on Wikipedia nor Conservapedia itself. Antandrus (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Antandrus, I have a question for you. Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that Google is the designated gauge of how well known a site is? The site is only two or three months old... how many Google hits do you expect? Last time I checked, Conservapedia had 81 users, which is not bad on the scale of things. VeniVidiVici007 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a "policy" -- it's basically common sense. Conservapedia is not well known by any measure, except maybe to you and a few home-schooled kids. Hey, I wish you well building it, but we don't exist to help you attain notability. Antandrus (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... I say it is well known, now what? It all depends on what you consider "well-known." I suggest we go with Hu's idea and give the site more time to become "well-known." VeniVidiVici007 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I say it is well known" is not a valid keep reason. Please read
          WP:WEB. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Keep:The demand to delete "conservapedia" is a demand for a censorship. Why delete something that of interest and use to some? Conservapedia has over ten times the entries as Demopedia, which is featured on Wikipedia without complaint. Conservapedia is probably growing a thousand times faster, too. The entry liberal feminism on Wikipedia has no references or sources, but I don't hear demands to censor that entry. On that entry there are references to other liberal Wikipedia entries that have less notability: Anarcha-feminism, Cyborg feminism, Marxist feminism, etc. There is a double-standard by liberals demanding to censor conservative entries. If successful, this illustrates the bias well. Andysch 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch
• Comment - Doesn't seem very well-known to me, no matter what the article says. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Split Infinity, what is your standard for a well-known site? VeniVidiVici007 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB. MER-C 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Keep It is a well known Wiki, this seems to be spreading into politics. Lets keep all sides functioning.
  Somitho 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: It is an abuse to demand "speedy delete" for political reasons. Conservapedia has obvious importance as an alternative source of information from a conservative perspective. With 1500 entries in a short period of time, conservapedia is clearly successful and growing quickly. There are many entries on Wikipedia that are less significant yet do not hear calls for speedy deletion. Let's be fair about this. Andysch 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
  • How would you describe the process by which the article on Onan was recently deleted from Conservapedia? I would call it "speedy deletion." I didn't notice anything similar to an AfD discussion taking place there. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are free to nominate any article for deletion that you feel do not meet Wikipedia criteria for retention, Andysch. You can do it carefully following the three step AfD tagging process, or you can get someone else who agrees with you to do it for you, though it is not difficult. Use it with care, but feel free to use it where you have read the relevant Wikipedia policy pages and feel that an article meets the criteria for deletion. That's fair. Hu 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just something that some editors here have missed: there is no Demopedia article - there is only a three sentence section about it in Democratic Underground, which should be deleted too if it fails WP:WEB (I don't know if it does/does not). Wickethewok 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Demopedia sentences should not be deleted they are an informative aspect about a notable web site. You might as well delete mention of Lincoln Chafee's classics degree because he never used it, but that would be equally ridiculous. Hu 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:V (seven Ghits)and Conflict of interest.--John Lake 07:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and ignore votes to keep for "liberal bias" reasons. Started three weeks ago, does not have any externally verifiable sources for the article. The ONLY reason to delete or keep this article is for policy reasons (
  WP:WEB), not reasons of "this is censorship!" or "Let's give them a fair chance". When/if the Conservapedia is written about by a reliable news source, there can be a Wikipedia article on it. Lovablebeautyme 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article doesn't help itself by making spurious claims about being 'one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, non-notable site. Fails
  WP:WEB--RWR8189 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete, non-notable site. Saying "It might be famous soon" isn't an argument to keep it. Come back when it does have verifiable third-party references. Mrjeff 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of meeting
  conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in the interests of
  Danny Lilithborne 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no external sources whatsoever (not even trivial ones) means this fails
  WP:WEB. Demiurge 13:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: the demands to censor this entry illustrates how Wikipedia has changed from its original purpose. This entry is factual, useful and obviously noteworthy, as demonstrated by the many comments here. Yet some don't like this entry for political reasons, and demand it be removed. If it is removed, the only question will be this: how many other sites have similarly been removed or censored on Wikipedia for political reasons??? Alternative sites may be the only way to combat this type of censorship. Andysch 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
  • The article, as you and your allies wrote it, was full of promotional adjectives and at least one factual error. I spent a little time editing it down to a more factual presentation. I also took time to advise you on some policy pages to read, but you have given no indication that you have digested or absorbed them, or even read them. The article is not being censored. You are new users here, and you don't understand yet as well as the other conservatives who are more experienced on Wikipedia, that Neutral Point of View is the controlling philosophy here and it works. Wikipedia policies and processes like this AfD have been hammered out over years and with thousands of discussions and participants. They are robust and effective and neutral. You need to get up to the level of understanding of the other conservatives here because your claims of censorship and political bias don't hold water. It used to be that conservatives would see a "red under every bed" (communist). Now they sometimes see a censor behind every web page. Both views are nonsensical. Wikipedia has articles on conservative sites Little Green Footballs and Free Republic. The Conservapedia article does technically fail the notability requirements, but I have argued on your behalf that it deserves a relaxed interpretation of the rules. I suggest that you try to adopt christian humility and Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy (which is christian and conservative, when you think about it, though not limited to those orientations) and have the good grace to not question people's motives here. Hu 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: namely WEB and COI. Eusebeus 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chuchunezumi 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this site current fails
  Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I wish the creators of that site the best of luck in their endeavor, but until that endeavor takes off it cannot claim more importance than any other start up web project of its size. -Markeer 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The reasons cited here for immediately deleting "conservapedia" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the "speedy delete" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain. Andysch 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
  • A Red under every bed! Oh no, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the article or the newness of the website, it must be them pesky pointy-haided libruhls! Hu 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries I'm working on it.--RWR8189 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Andysch: Possibly you should read through that article I linked right before your comment, Andysch. 1) re: "Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries" is only an argument that there are many other Wikipedia entries that may need to be deleted, not an argument to keep this one if it fails to meet wikipedia's criteria. 2) The reason this "particular entry" is being debated is because someone looked at it, believed it was inappropriate, and brought it here. Dozens of other articles every day have this happen to them, and those do not involve politics so there is no need to do anything but assume good faith. 3) "it is obviously noteworthy": if it were obvious, there would be no debate. Don't assert it, prove it. The comments of a small handful of individuals does not make a website notable. Verifiable proof, in the form of reliable secondary sources, is what makes it notable. It is NOT obvious as the article currently exists. If you wish it to be obvious to those of us voting for deletion, find the evidence to support that, don't state it as rhetorical argument. -Markeer 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply fails all possible notability tests. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung and Markeer, and per Andysch, who said it only has 81 users (another notability measure). --Quuxplusone 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing the verifiability policy, since no sources are cited and the only external link is the site itself, and because no evidence is provided that the site is of any importance. If someone provides good source citations to a source meeting the
  reliable source guidelines that show that there is widespread interest in this site, I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as WP is not a place to drum up the appearance of notability for something that is clearly not notable yet.--Dmz5 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you want an eye-opener, check out conservapedia. Maybe it's time for a constitutional ammendment banning home-schooling? (kidding of course. I am just a wacko liberal I guess.)--Dmz5 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The discussion is about the article, it's not as if we are attempting to delete the encyclopedia itself. If the encyclopedia is indeed so notable, it will not take much damage not being listed in Wikipedia. I'm really sorry, but I can't really see any reason for inclusion, it a bit of a stretch to call it notable. Delta Tango • Talk 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Offered without comment: the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more interested in their entries on topics such as Church of England, Great Wall of China, Plato, etc. I was curious as to what the conservative, Christian-friendly "take" on these subjects might be, but, well, as they say, "it is designed to be a useful resource for students and teachers, which means it prefers concise entries." Yes, I know that Wikipedia looked a lot like that once... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. S. It hope goes without saying that the fact that Conservapedia bills itself as being a competitor or component of WIkipedia is not a reason for deletion. Daniel Brandt's
    Wikipedia Watch properly has a long section describing it, for example. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete This isn't about censorship. It's about non-trivial references. Yes, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia with the same. If you find them, fix them or offer them up for deletion. Cheers. --jaydj 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I've now noted in the article, their main page has received 4,301 hits (as I write this). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Now the main page is up to 4363 views! Maxamegalon2000 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:WEB is not in this article's favour. - Justin (Authalic) 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I did not post the original entry "Conservapedia" here. But the defect to the citations above to numerous policies (like many regulations) is that enforcement becomes selective and biased. I've helped many criminal defendants against arbitrary enforcement of laws and know well the potential for abuse. Regardless, the above comments indicate that Wikipedia has become a tool for bullying, which is the opposite of its original purpose. I contributed to Wikipedia entries years ago when it was a voice for those outside of the mainstream. Sadly, Wikipedia has been taken over by bullies. Andysch 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
  • Fact is, Wikipedia has a deliberative process that is not bullying. By contrast, if someone edits the Conservapedia Evolution page to indicate that the "theory" is well-established science, just like gravity, though well-established, is a "theory", the bullies at Conservapedia will delete it post-haste, without discussion or justification, because not only does it not fit their faith-based agenda, but there is no place on that site for anything else. By contrast, Wikipedia has an extensive series on so-called Intelligent Design, even though it is way outside of science and the mainstream. Hu 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andysch, your persecution complex aside, this nothing more than an open discussion to reach consensus among editors on whether this particular article fits within Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines. It does appear that quite a number of editors believe your article does not. End of story. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another {{db-web}} site which fails to claim or imply notability, no sign of non-trivial independent reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:V -- Whpq 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Hu, you have truly stated that on conservapedia.com an entry claiming that evolution is a well supported and well established fact was deleted. What you have overlooked is that a page was immediately created to welcome debate on the issue. If that's not fair I don't know what is. In fact the page on evolution has been more recently changed to so that it merely sums up the theory rather than either condemning or advocating it. Hannibal'sAlps
  • Comment That's nice, but how does it show that Conservapedia satisfies
    WP:WEB? Those are the only relevant criteria in this debate.--RWR8189 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • An encyclopedia like Conservapedia that doesn't welcome established science in its main body is not much of an encyclopedia, Hannibal's Alps. Hu 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All editors on both sides should keep in mind that whether Conservapedia is "fair and balanced" or whether it meets the definition of encyclopedia are not arguments for or against deletion by Wikipedia policy. Points made on either question are irrelevant. Please contain your arguments to the appropriate Wikipedia policies as listed by RWR8189. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That is true! Though consevapedia is quite fair and balanced, Such merits do not necessarily qualify it for a article on Wikipedia. I realize that although consevapedia does not quite meet the technical standards of not notability, the article on it is more worthwhile than thousands of other pages which are even less qualified. To keep this article woudl technically violate wikipedia policy, but to delete it would be hipocracy. Hannibal's Alps

Comment just as a reply to the hipocracy (sic) argument: I believe this point has been made a few times in this discussion, which confuses me. Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every week, and a large percentage of them are deleted upon discussion. Quite often the reasons for deletion are the same ones being argued here, which means there is no hypocrisy, only an ongoing consistent policy which is currently being applied to this article. The only other point you seem to be making is "the article is more worthwhile than..." which is, by definition, a subjective view completely at odds with wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view.

In other words, keeping this article because of the argument that "this article is more worthwhile than that article" WOULD be hypocrisy.-Markeer 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dhartung is correct, these are not arguments for or against deletion. However, as an aside, Hannibal's Alps is flat wrong. Conservapedia is not fair and balanced (and not much of an encyclopedia) when it kicks science out of the encyclopedia articles and relegates it to a discussion page ghetto. Hu 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::: OK, here's the thing. You say that Wikipedia is unbiased because it contains material that would satisfy a "faith-based" person. But having the article doesn't invalidate a biased report. The content may be very biased. And, Conservapedia does, in fact, welcome established science in its articles. Then you might be asking why we deleted the phrase describing evolution as a scientific theory. Well the reason is very simple. That phrase did not meet the requirements of a well-supported statement. Based on solid scientific fact, the "theory" of evolution is just an accepted hypothesis. Drod7425 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, this page exists only to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted based on

WP:WEB. Content disputes should be on the article's talk page.--RWR8189 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This has nothing to do with any sort of black-helicoptered, blue-helmeted "liberal bias" of WP and everything to do with the fact that this article does nothing whatsoever to establish notability -- it doesn't even make an attempt. There is one external link (to the site itself) and three reference links (again, all to the site itself). Ordinarily I would hope to see an AfD nom like this result in an article being improved by adding in references that satisfy
  WP:WEB, but in this case there do not appear to be any (if a 7-hit Google search is any indicator). Seventypercent 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Notable? Yeah right. How about let's start calling this place Junkapedia!EnabledDanger 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, kill strawman of censorship. Believe it or not, it's possible to want to delete someone's favorite site without any concern of censoring them. Just
  WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.