Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are 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. east.718 at 02:02, November 27, 2007

[edit] We Are Change

We Are Change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article reads like an advertisement written by one of the subject's members. Clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I am actually one of the members, but feel free to research my group and make the article more neutral. stewie69 (talk)

Delete Likely a Conflict of Interest is present too. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are no independent reliable sources, either to establish notability for the subject or to provide verifiable content for the article. Hence, it's no surprise that the article in unencyclopaedic and non-neutral. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per lack of adequate notability assertion. A non-profit organization that boasts about raising only $11,000 cannot be notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Looks like another case of someone who wants to use Wikipedia to build notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable kooks. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The author of this site has been active adding POV comments to today's main article, 7 World Trade Center, all of which have been reverted quickly. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • While the comment I made above can be used to establish the author's motive (in this case, COI), there are situations where such a comment constitutes irrelevant ad hominem. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Stewie69 has also made questionable modifications to September 11, 2001 attacks which were subsequently reverted. By What Wikipedia is not, it seems wrong to me that a member of some movement should write an article about it, with a number of external links that are no more neutral than its author. Hence, I think the article should be deleted. update: Page seems to have been deleted before, possibly for similar reasons: See deletion log Andreas Willow (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NN fringe group. Fails WP:ORG. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable organization, with no sources to back up claims of notability. --Haemo (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. Timneu22 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment All the changes I made to the 7 World Trade Center and September 11, 2001 attacks were actually a service to wikipedia, as these articles are full of the lies of the official story. There is not one shred of evidence that those 19 hijackers or Osama Bin Laden is in any way shape or form connected to these attacks. Many of these hijackers are confirmed to be alive and living in the middle east. Steel buildings have NEVER collapsed from fire in history before 9/11/01. Our group is fighting to bring attention to the fact that right here in New York, in America, the government is murdering its own citizens and there is nothing being done to bring whoever did this to justice. You all have been fed lies and you're swallowing it down like thanksgiving turkey. To the guy that said we're not notable because we only raised $11,000 for the first responders, well we've only been at this for a year. Go ahead and delete this page if you want, You'll hear about us again. stewie69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Most are aware that small minorities believe different things. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where articles must display facts that are widely supported. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a place to draw attention to theories that are not well-supported. Consensus will probably never be reached on these subjects, people will always object. Although I wish to respect your opinion, I must stress that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not a discussion platform. In many of the above WP links, you can see why you can not use Wikipedia for your opinion on this matter. Thank you for your understanding. Andreas Willow (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, I don't understand your point, so you don't need the thank me for that. 'Facts that are widely supported'? That doesn't mean true facts, but only facts that many people believe to be true. I believe wikipedia should contain only true facts. stewie69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I do not challenge your desire for Wikipedia to contain only true facts, I believe your claims that you only wish to tell the truth, per WP:AGF. The only point I'm making, is that in some cases the truth may be disputed. However, the current discussion on this page considers not possible vandalism on 9/11 pages, but rather the deletion of We Are Change. In this matter, I repeat that by WP:NN, the organisation remains, in my opinion, insignificant, and is not deserving a page on Wikipedia. Andreas Willow (talk) 10:43, 23 November 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.