Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groklaw Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Groklaw

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 speedy keep. WP:POINTY nomination by WP:SPA. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groklaw

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

Non-notable blog which is only referenced by self published sources, self promotion, fails WP:RS. Dead website used primarily as a link spam source to spam Wikipedia and the internet in general in a pay for hire scheme for black hat SEO link spamming self promotion from an unknown and unidentifiable source on the internet. Fails WP:RSGrokslots (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was incorrectly transcluded to the day's log, listed by Deadbeef at 07:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, speedy keep as a disruptive nom by a SPA. I've also struck the nominator's delete !vote as redundant (!vote established by the nomination) Dea db eef 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the great PJ says along with the EFF, people have the right to speak anonymously without being called an SPA, censored, or attacked -- assume good faith please. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Failure of nom to read the sources, which include cited awards and/or in-depth commentary from numerous independent and major groups. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User talk:DMacks

PT Barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute" and the groklaw website is proof positive this is true. If this Jones person were credible he/she/they/it would have no problem complying with WP policies about reliable content for a bio. The shameful scam these hucksters have played for almost a decade is at an end. The fact is, these people cut and run when the NSA got close to catching them. You will find they are the same people behind the DOS attacks on the internet and most of the botnets. Just a bunch of cyber criminals out making money. hired by IBM and several other parties to smear anyone for money. It's time they answered to the internet community for one of the biggest black hat SEO scams ever pulled on the internet. Let's see if they meet wikipedia's strict policies on bios -- NOT! 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will rely on reliable sources in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and note that you have a poor track record of reading the articles you are nominating. If this person/site is as bad as you say, obviously there will be substantial reliable sources proving it. And being the subject of substantial reliable sources makes the subject notable. Wikipedia covers all topics that are notable, whether or not someone thinks they are a positive influence, have a basis in fact, or even exist at all in reality. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if those sources are all self published, which they are. This groklaw site and PJ are a scam. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read what the sources actually are. And also double-check the deletion process...you seem to mistakenly think it is a poll, or that your nomination itself isn't an obvious stance that you would agree with yourself for deletion. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sources -- all blogs, secondary sources, republished primary sources -- no single reliable third party sources. Other blogs are not reliable sources. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll see if others think the American Bar Association and major linux journals are reliable or not. Nothing more to discuss here. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "paid advertising" and the payment is black hat SEO link spamming. take off the groklaw rose colored glasses and look at it objectively. These things are still blogs and false reporting. There have been numerous fake bios on wikipedia. Just because this one happens to strike a resonant chord in folks doesn't make it credible. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing more to discuss here" means exactly that. Stop wasting your time here on my talk-page with what is really AfD material. DMacks (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Referenced by variety of commentators, winner of awards, meticulous recording of various legal cases. Murray Langton (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, not to mention a possible block on the nominator, as his/her contributions indicate that s/he seems to have a problem with Groklaw and everything related to it (s/he even !voted twice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Jones). I also wonder if the 50 IP above is a sockpuppet of his/hers. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - POINTY disruptive nomination by SPA with an axe to grind against Groklaw and subjects related to it. Subject is notable, well referenced, mutli-award winning, .... -- KTC (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2013 (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.