Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror Storm (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 and redirect to Alex Jones (radio) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:35Z
[edit] Terror Storm
Nom - speedied once already (so here we are), non-notable, unsourced, unverified, conspiracy theory. Likely adverSPAMcruftVERTisment - as the article hypes the author of an as-yet unpublished book. Created by an apparent vandal account. Rklawton 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerrorStorm.
- Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerrorStorm (2nd Nomination).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, then recreate it just so we can delete it again. Non-notable conspiracy theory. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced. While this has achieved some prominence on the web and Muse have "supported" it, I can't find any mentions or reviews (outside of unreliable activist media). It's possible they exist, but they need to be added. Trebor 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: it doesn't need sources besides what you call "unreliable activist media". AFD is not about whether it's true or not, only whether it's verifiable that people are saying this and what they're saying. So "unreliable activist media" are actually quite reliable for sourcing of what the allegations are and that some people are promoting those allegations. That's all that's needed for WP:V. — coelacan talk — 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was using the notability guideline, which says it needs independent reliable sources. Trebor 12:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: it doesn't need sources besides what you call "unreliable activist media". AFD is not about whether it's true or not, only whether it's verifiable that people are saying this and what they're saying. So "unreliable activist media" are actually quite reliable for sourcing of what the allegations are and that some people are promoting those allegations. That's all that's needed for WP:V. — coelacan talk — 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD criteria G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"). --Aude (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note - actually, that only applies to material deleted though AfD or the like. Recreation of speedy deletes constitues a challenge to the SD and is permitted. Deletions thus challenged may go to AfD (as this one has). An admin, however, can opt for WP:SNOW and close the discussion early - or not. Rklawton 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerrorStorm. --Aude (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)- Somewhere this got deleted and turned into a redirect to Alex Jones (radio). I can't find it, but might have been an alternative spelling or something. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TerrorStorm_(2nd_Nomination). --Aude (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- G4 only applies to replications of deleted content. This is different content about the same subject, so G4 doesn't apply. There's no Speedy rationale, and I think every admin here knows that these conspiracy discussions are never SNOW. I'm looking for refs. This needs to run five days. — coelacan talk — 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TerrorStorm_(2nd_Nomination). --Aude (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhere this got deleted and turned into a redirect to Alex Jones (radio). I can't find it, but might have been an alternative spelling or something. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above and protect from being recreated.--MONGO 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
