Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belmont Club

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 keep. Shimeru (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Club[edit]

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

Non-notable political blog. Of the references given in the article, the first does not mention the blog, only quotes its author; the second is an editorial; the third is the site itself; and the fourth is an unadorned link from ABC's blog (which can in no way be considered to fulfill WP:WEB criterion 2, before someone brings it up). I'm not seeing anything that would meet the general notability guideline in my own searches. Prod was disputed after the fact on the basis that "PROD process did not invite input". —Korath (Talk) 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bit of an oddball case. Like academics, the more intellectual bloggers are seldom written about per se, and more likely to be quoted or cited. In that context, Fernandez is a decently significant public intellectual. The Sunday Times piece describes the pseudonym used by the author on the blog - an indirect tribute. The Weekly Standard piece also gives the blog high praise as an influential military blog - and I fail to see what it being an editorial has to do with anything, for purposes of notability. Here is Salon critiquing Fernandez in the context of press corruption by insurgents in Iraq [1], being quoted at length in another Weekly Standard blog [2], by Michael Barone in US News [3] on the corruption in the US government, co-authoring a contributed feature in the Jerusalem Post with an American brigade commander [4]. This is pretty amazing for a Filipino-born Australian with no official position whatever in the government. Insofar as an encyclopedia is supposed to be about human knowledge and the people who generate it, influential intellects like Fernandez's, and the work they produce deserve a writeup (this is, if you like, a direct analogy to WP:PROF criterion 7, although Fernandez is not an academic in the standard sense of the term). Ray^Talk 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ray, does your view mean that maybe this article should be about the person rather than the blog? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I'm indifferent. In the normal practice of covering academics, we make the article about the person, and not the work. But here, all the person's notability stems from work very closely identified with the blog. I could go either way here, I just think it's important the material is retained and available for our readers. Ray^Talk 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- seems a decently sourced small article on a notable public intellectual, notable illustrated by the discussion of his contribution/analysis in Salon, US News, Sunday Times, etc. N2e (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ray, possibly move to Richard Fernandez per Buckshot06. Mildly comparable articles might be Michael Totten and Michael Yon (I say "mildly" because Yon and Totten are reporters whereas Fernandez analyses stuff, but their notability is similar). Miracle Pen (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and, if moved to Richard Fernandez, then a redirect from Belmont Club to Richard Fernandez should be kept in place. But, since Fernandez is mainly known for the Belmont Club, rather than vice versa, and since the Belmont Club has long been distinctly a complexus of Fernandez and his commenters, I'd argue for a redirect from Richard Fernandez to the Belmont Club. The Tetrast (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Appears to be nothing more the a private blog with no history, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia is questionable. The Scythian 15:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2010 (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.