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. Wel... I'd usually write something here about why an 8th nomination is reaching a delete conclusion, but consensus is pretty clear here. Courcelles 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the face of it, this is a pretty non-notable website, the 'major publicity' is pretty minor, and outside of Wikipedia it is likely to be completely unheard of. WikiTruth as a term is no longer associated with this website - a walk through internet search results for 'Wikitruth' will show this. I think it would be a good time to review the existence of this article, after the events have passed. Prodego ^talk 15:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination appears self-contradictory - if the term has spread beyond the original website, then its obviously heard of outside of Wikipedia. Regardless, notability is not temporary. Surviving 7 previous AfDs shows a consensus for this subject being notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only lasted a couple years and did nothing important.Figmentary (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Figmentary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete I realize it survived eight times already, but Jesus, it has exactly one footnote, which is a trivial mention, and the link to the website is dead. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the current article blatantly fails WP:N and a search for additional sources found only more trivial coverage in English. The mentions in French and Spanish did not appear to be any more substantial. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources give only trivial mentions to the website. Nothing to indicate notability. No evidence that the website ever managed to do anything of impact either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete #6 was kept entirely via WP:ITSNOTABLE and #7 was thought to be POINTy. As for this nomination, I say good faith; clearly, there's no non-trivial coverage, no matter how much someone might say there is. Saying "it's notable, it just needs sources" won't make sources magically appear out of thin air, you know. Why can't anyone figure that out?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (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.