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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), and brief. Some assertion of notability, so not speedy. The author is also up for AFD: Paul Joseph Watson, along with his other website. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the most prominent 9/11 truth movement websites, if this does not qualify as a notable, 9/11 truth website, then what does?--Striver 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen [1], the site has a very high Alexa ranking considering the non-mainstream information it propagates. --Striver 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alex Jones. Such a small amount of content could be covered there.--Isotope23 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficiently notable for mention beyond Alex Jones (radio) article. --mtz206 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Alexa rating of 10 000 for a conspirace site nn? How do you justify that? --Striver 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold Alexa ratings in as high of esteem as you apparently do, and neither do the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guidelines. Traffic != notability. --mtz206 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Alex Jones. The subject is notable - its Alexa rating is sufficiently high to merit an article. But there is so little information in this article that it should be merged without prejudice to the recreation of this article if its subsection on that the Alex Jones page becomes too large. --Hyperbole 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, infowars.com is infact a notable website, passing WP:WEB.--Jersey Devil 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unwarranted promo. Anything that could be covered here will already be covered in Alex Jones (radio) so this is unnecessary duplication. KleenupKrew 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge so short it can easily be merged, but notable on it own. --Eivind^t@c 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't know if it passes WP:WEB, but I also don't care. It's only a guideline, and this is certainly a notable website, even if it helps my investments in tinfoil futures. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not pass WP:WEB. The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria... — which it doesn't. Weregerbil 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB or redirect to Alex Jones. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is a notable and interesting site passing web Yuckfoo 18:28, 16 May 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.