Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critiques Of Libertarianism

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The keepers execute a reasonable justification of the article. -Splash^talk 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques Of Libertarianism

Alexa rank is 959,041. I don't see how this site is notable by WP:WEB; text of article sounds primarily promotional. Daniel Case 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is notable, as one of the only, well-organized, websites dedicated to critcizing libertarianism. It is the number one site on google for critiques [1] and third for libertarianism [2]. Canadianism 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for above reasons.Canadianism

(above vote by article creator)

None of those establish notability. The whole site belongs in the external links, and/or references section of, Criticisms of Libertarianism. Daniel Case 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, simply a link to somebody's FAQ site and a weak justification of its existence on wikipedia. -Drdisque 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noted by college course links.Canadianism 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcastic comeback. So? Daniel Case 06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks to the wonderful practice of Googlebombing, rank placing is not a reliable indicator of notability. The fact that a single, non-notable site links to you is not an indication of notability. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but add a link on an appropriate page.--ThreeAnswers 09:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 12:07Z
Delete as vanispamcruft. Or may just plain old-fashioned spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will assure you, I am not using this article as a commercial for the site and I, gain nothing from writing this article. The website itself isn't commercial or for-profit. Additionally, I have not connections to this site whatso ever. Canadianism 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ugh. I hate hate hate the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site, but it's still notable. This site is frequently linked by people who are attempting to refute libertarianism. Even though most of its arguments intentionally misrepresent the beliefs of libertarians, a lot of people refer to this site. It's been around forever and it's pretty notable. Did I mention this site sucks? Rhobite 14:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please cite how it's notable? You've only offered anecdotal evidence so far. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html has Alexa traffic rank of 960,000 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 05:17Z
Keep, maybe someone can add a summary of David Friedman's response to the "FAQ". Gazpacho 18:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mike Huben's site has been around forever and is discussed all the time in Internet conversations about libertarianism. Clearly meets WP:V, and it is notable enough to deserve an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Advert. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 09:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a link from libertarianism should do. --Pfafrich 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pfafrich (I already voted Delete). None of the Keep arguments so far have convinced me of notability as a website. The article doesn't contain much relevant non-obvious information -- the only minorly useful information I see is that the site contains a FAQ and is run by Mike Huben, and that could be in the External link line. Link from Criticism of libertarianism might be even more appropriate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-08 10:30Z
Comment: maybe this website should simply be an external link under the Libertarian article. Kingturtle 05:27, 9 January 2006 (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.