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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia (Wiki)[edit]

Metapedia (Wiki) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Yet another minor wiki. Has been up for three weeks, but there doesn't seem to be any prospect of it ever expanding beyond this sub-stub and the author seems to admit on the talkpage that it's unsourceable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every website on the planet and I see no reason why we need a listing for this one. (A certain J Wales has also raised concerns about the lack of sources.)  – ırıdescent 21:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no reliable sources. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A Google search turned up this and nothing else that looks like a reliable source in the first couple of hundred results. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... It seems to me that it would never be much more than a perma-stub about a non-notable wiki... Adolphus79 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A wiki like metapedia will definitely attract media attention in the near future, if it gets deleted it will just have to be remade quite soon, neo-nazis always attract attention. 124.184.19.95 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not our business to guess at what will attract media attention: if it does so in the future we can recreate the article in a minute or so. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here. Fleetflame 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We previously deleted an article about this same web site at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia. However, it may be the case that additional sources have emerged since then (the item from The Register is an example). If this article is kept, it should be moved to Metapedia because the current title doesn't disambiguate anything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD-A7. Fleetflame 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per absolutely no notability. Enigma ^message 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable hate site, plus the fact that the article has been previously deleted under a different name. Now, I could understand Wikipedia having an article on a website such as Stormfront, because despite the fact that it is equally odious, it is certainly notable, and has been mentioned in other media. But this one is simply too small and unknown, and we don't need to be giving such people any free promotion. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable site. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a completely non-notable hate site. Zredsox (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm. So the articles by The Register (a major publication) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (a very prominent racism watch organization) don't grant notability? It doesn't have huge amounts of notability, but the sources would grant other subjects some would find less distasteful enough notability to survive an AfD. It is verified, has notability and is written neutrally. I see no justification for deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are marginal RS's which IMO merely confirms non-notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely, as an unverifiable article of a non-notable disparaging website, we should get rid of it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable today. Unfortunately, that may change over time and this article may be back. The two sources seem (borderline) reasonable but...they are the only two to be found, which does not confer notability.  Frank  |  talk  12:54, 7 July 2008 (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.