AFD

Will malicious sites and moral depravity be cited in the debate? Or are MONGO, ElinorD, and SV too chickenshit?[1]

What does the Wikipedia Review faithful think? should it stay or should it go?

I feel this is probably going to end early in a keep. There's a strange love affair between WP and Wikitruth, regardless of their content, even though "attack articles" on Wikipedia editors, such as FCYTravis exist. Or is that just garden variety criticism stated bluntly and unkindly?

They couldn't keep Wikitruth. That would imply a massive degree of hypocrisy, and we can't imagine such a thing on Wikipedia.

Still, for the record we should note this vote:

I think that Wikitruth should be kept for the same reason as they should have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia Review. These sites are all notable enough by Wikipedia's standards. However, given that both ED and WR were deleted based on their being "attack sites", therefore Wikitruth (and Wikipedia Watch) should be deleted too. That's the argument. If 2 articles can be deleted, not because of lack of notability, but because of their content, then 2 others with far worse content (in terms of what they object to) should be deleted too.

It just seems stupid that they should keep an article on Wikitruth.

Meh. Wikitruth is of info only to wikipedians, AFD would be reasonable on notability grounds imo.

The increasing dysfunction of WP has given rise to a new fact is will central to understanding all community "discussions" from now on. Every "discussion" will consist of both manifest content, which is openly debated per the usual limits of WP and latent content which will not be debated or even articulated. The latent content will control most decision making.

The thing is, in a hypothetical world where Wikipedia has an article on ED, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to keep the ED trolls from editing it. It would be highly likely that in the article, said trolls would likely mention someone who does not want to be mentioned (could be anyone at all, even me or you) and then there would be yet another AfD.

Nobody would be able to keep a fair and balanced article about ED on Wikipedia without someone slanting it.

Wikitruth, on the other hand, does not have that problem.

Looks like Neil closed early as Keep.

Wikitruth is always up for AFD. They had GNAA up for deletion 10-20 times and then finally it went. GNAA also has an attack page on on HighInBC with outing info and Wikipedia ignores it in the badsites debate.