It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chissler
I may be wrong, but I believe we had one and it was removed because of ATS naysayers going out of their way to use the page to attack us.
220.127.116.11 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com, different IP, but same person as 18.104.22.168
22.214.171.124 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com
126.96.36.199 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com with nazi references as part of a petty personal vendetta
Originally posted by Springer
I remember seeing something about a debate that (probably started by a disgruntled banned ex member) the site didn't rate a Wiki article...
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone from the site claims 40,000-odd registered members, but link:-site: on Google presents only a dozen or so hits, mostly deep inside discussion boards, and the only Google News hit is a press release from the site. Unless the claim to notability can be independently verified, I'd say its webcruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
More info now I can get Alexa to work: Alexa rank 14,925, 100-odd sites linking in, mostly personal homepages by the loooks of it. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Promotion/adv for website. ERcheck 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
OTOH they are the leading disscussion board for conspirocy theories on the web.Geni 05:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
So they say. And this is a leading conpiracy to delete it form Wikipedia. Run! I can hear the black helicopters coming! - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Notability requires objective evidence
The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.
Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.
subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by chissler
That's quite an extreme approach to dealing with something you disagree with.
People actually vandalize the wiki entry?
Blimey - I'm just trying to imagine how obsessed a person would have to be, to do that.
The old saying is right:
"There's nothing as strange as folk"
Is there somewhere on ATS that gives collates independent claims to fame, including press reports, TV coverage, independently verified statistics etc etc??
Originally posted by BlasteR
It's nuts! You would think there would be a way of keeping the data locked and non-editable by just any average joe. I'm curious now if the cause of the vandalism was someone simply editing it or someone doing something illegal.