| Revision as of 07:15, 24 May 2007 editProtectWomen (talk | contribs)650 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:15, 24 May 2007 edit undoMike18xx (talk | contribs)2,849 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :Which sources? --] 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | :Which sources? --] 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' unless there are reliable, non-trivial sources provided. As at right now, there are neither. ] - ] 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' unless there are reliable, non-trivial sources provided. As at right now, there are neither. ] - ] 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. |
*'''Delete'''. Joining in the chorus that keeping would require the citation of independent sources establishing notability. I've actually heard of this blog, so I suspect there might be such sources; if citation is beefed up, drop me a note and I'll consider opposing deletion. ]<small> ] ]</small> 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - Survived first AfD and will survive this one. The website is notable enough that opponents would like to see article deleted. Apparently some others suggested merge at the first AfD (into ]). The site on its own has been mentioned on many radio shows (where Spencer has been interviewed). As the article stands by itself, it doesn't appear to violate any policy. It is brief and to the point. --] 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - Survived first AfD and will survive this one. The website is notable enough that opponents would like to see article deleted. Apparently some others suggested merge at the first AfD (into ]). The site on its own has been mentioned on many radio shows (where Spencer has been interviewed). As the article stands by itself, it doesn't appear to violate any policy. It is brief and to the point. --] 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **It's brief and to the point, but entirely lacking in independent, non-trivial sources at the moment. If there are non-trivial mentions of the website on radio shows, this would be the kind of thing which might sway people advocating deletion. ] - ] 07:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | **It's brief and to the point, but entirely lacking in independent, non-trivial sources at the moment. If there are non-trivial mentions of the website on radio shows, this would be the kind of thing which might sway people advocating deletion. ] - ] 07:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I remember, back in the hazy mists of yore, when Misplaced Pages containing all kinds of interesting articles -- instead of only articles deemed mentionable by FFC-licensed dinosaur paleo-media that nobody with a computer and a room-temperature IQ has relied on for information for at least ten years running.--] 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:15, 24 May 2007
Jihad Watch
AfDs for this article:Fails WP:WEB: no reliable, external, second hand sources whatsoever. The article seems to have to survived the previous nomination on it's Alexa ranking and amount of google hits alone, which is completely against deletion policy. The first requirement of WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Remember that other blogs are not WP:RS, per that policy. Mackan 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The first Afd was an exasperating read that basically concluded the article should be kept on the basis of google hits and "I've heard of it" arguments. The article seems to be "referenced" by first party materials. I don't see any reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This reference is from Reason magazine. Daphne Merkin wrote about Jihad Watch in her column 'The Way We Live Now' in the New York Times on August 15 2004, though I can't link to it as it's behind the subscriber wall. She writes 'To this end we have been glued to the Internet throughout this long hot summer of beheadings and terrorist scares, checking out Web sites with names likes Blogs of War, Jihad Watch and Above Top Secret.' Nick mallory 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Reason Online reference gives only a rather trivial mention, made in passing. The NY mention is extremely trivial, as it only mentions the name of the blog. Mackan 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The author is notable, the blog is not. At most, create a short section on Robert Spencer regarding the blog. Tarc 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep - blog is extremely notable. why go through a second AfD? Misheu 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is it notable? --Haemo 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Without wasting too much time on looking things up for everybody - there is a catch 22 here when blogs which are well known and respected in the blogosphere are being attacked for notability. A blog by essence is a person who does not go through the regular press and feels that the regular press does not give voice to his ideas. It would be very rare for blogs which go against the mainstream to appear in the mainstream, and yet some blogs are immensely popular. Why is a blog notable only if some second writer in the New York Times decided to write an editorial on it and not if it's constantly quoted in other blogs and its opinions referred to everywhere? From my point of view, it's notable since when I look up information on Islam, I run into it quite often. This entry went through an AfD less than half a year ago, and there's no reason it should go through it again.Misheu 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the "mainstream media" has not neglected blogs - they are routinely featured, and mentioned, on radio, in press, and on TV. Wolf Blitzer has a whole "blog-watch" section - "The Situation Online". The point is that blogs need reliable sources to back up their notability - and the key to reliability is oversight; blogs are really, at their heart, nothing more than a special personal website where someone talks about their thoughts. There's no fact checking, no editorial oversight - and thus we can't call them "reliable sources". Think about it this way - blogs are like people talking; they could be influential, well-spoken people, but they're still just people talking. They could be mistaken, they could be inaccurate. They could be outright lying. Without any oversight, we have no way to know. As such, blogs aren't reliable sources - well, most blogs. If someone is talked about on blogs, that's really not any evidence of notability; any more than someone being discussed on Myspace, or Facebook, is evidence of notability. If someone is truly notable, they should have reliable third party souces about them - and the simple fact is that your assertion that the "mainstream media" refuses to cover blogs is not true. Look at someone like Michele Malkin - she has reliable sources; why doesn't this one? --Haemo 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Without wasting too much time on looking things up for everybody - there is a catch 22 here when blogs which are well known and respected in the blogosphere are being attacked for notability. A blog by essence is a person who does not go through the regular press and feels that the regular press does not give voice to his ideas. It would be very rare for blogs which go against the mainstream to appear in the mainstream, and yet some blogs are immensely popular. Why is a blog notable only if some second writer in the New York Times decided to write an editorial on it and not if it's constantly quoted in other blogs and its opinions referred to everywhere? From my point of view, it's notable since when I look up information on Islam, I run into it quite often. This entry went through an AfD less than half a year ago, and there's no reason it should go through it again.Misheu 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The jihad against Misplaced Pages articles critical of Islam continues....--Mike18xx 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.Mackan 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm seeing a lot of "KEEP NOTABLE!" and "WHY DO YOU HATE THE SUBJECT" arguments here, but not any reliable sources. --Haemo 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Alexa rank for www.jihadwatch.org is 38,363 which seems too low to establish notability. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - anything in the top 50,000 is impressive --ProtectWomen 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable blog as per sources. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which sources? --Haemo 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless there are reliable, non-trivial sources provided. As at right now, there are neither. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Joining in the chorus that keeping would require the citation of independent sources establishing notability. I've actually heard of this blog, so I suspect there might be such sources; if citation is beefed up, drop me a note and I'll consider opposing deletion. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Survived first AfD and will survive this one. The website is notable enough that opponents would like to see article deleted. Apparently some others suggested merge at the first AfD (into Robert Spencer). The site on its own has been mentioned on many radio shows (where Spencer has been interviewed). As the article stands by itself, it doesn't appear to violate any policy. It is brief and to the point. --ProtectWomen 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's brief and to the point, but entirely lacking in independent, non-trivial sources at the moment. If there are non-trivial mentions of the website on radio shows, this would be the kind of thing which might sway people advocating deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I remember, back in the hazy mists of yore, when Misplaced Pages containing all kinds of interesting articles -- instead of only articles deemed mentionable by FFC-licensed dinosaur paleo-media that nobody with a computer and a room-temperature IQ has relied on for information for at least ten years running.--Mike18xx 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)