Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates of Vienna (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 September 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Vienna

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

Giving publicity to a blog that does not deserve it. Not notable and not aproppriate for WP to have this article. E4024 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree on why, but I'll second the motion to delete.BeeSea (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was at AfD about two weeks ago, which makes the renomination potentially questionable and which in another circumstance could result in a speedy keep. However, since the consensus then was "no consensus," I suppose it's okay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the author's article was up for deletion, I tried very, very hard to find sources by searching both on him and on his blog. There simply isn't significant coverage out there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Scholar where you find references to the blog from inter alia the New York Times and and a number of peer-reviewed scholarly journals (see below my post for some of them). There is more than enough media and scholarly coverage out there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The blog has been mentioned by a few independent sources, but I don't see it as having "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society,..." (see WP:NWEB). —Eustress ^talk 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as per roscelese, eustress and e4024.-- altetendekrabbe 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no small personal blog. This website features articles by significant writers in the anti-Islam camp. Also, the website has received considerable discussion in numerous reliable sources. I find it clearly meets the first of the two notability criteria listed at WP:WEBSITE. __meco (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where is this "considerable discussion in numerous releible sources"? It is not in the article, and not in a Google search for "Gates of Vienna" + blog. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Roscelese Jason from nyc (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its smidgeon of coverage involves a supposed Breivik link, it simply has no independent notability. Ankh.Morpork 21:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails GNG. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

the blog has been referred to in internationally leading publications such as the New York Times (1).
It has also been mentioned in peer-reviewed publications such as International Affairs as late as July 2012 (2). Also in Critical Horizons, Vol 13, No 1 (2012) (3) and the Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies where it is called one of "the most influential web pages" along with Jihad Watch.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in 2011 in Anthropology Today, another scholarly journal, that "Among the most influential are Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna". (A darker shade of pale: Cultural intimacy in an age of terrorism).

This is only a small selection which could be easily expanded with more references. Considering that the last vote took place only two weeks ago, I find it difficult to regard the 2nd AfD as done ~~in entirely good faith or~~ with full knowledge of the blog's real significance for the Counterjihad movement. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Gun Powder Ma, I made the delete request in entirely good faith and would kindly request you not to accuse other users like this, it really is not nice. --E4024 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have received sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria. Athenean (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Notability (web) says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I did a Lexis search to see if the Blog has ever been the subject, not merely a footnote, of an article. Yes, it is mentioned by multiple news outlets, but I can't find one article where it is the 'subject' or even a primary subject. It appears in no titles of any article. And a Lexis Subject word search reveals no hits. If anyone has an article (or better "multiple non-trivial" articles) where 'Gates of Vienna' is the subject, post them up. So far, they have not been provided (all of GPM's sources are brief mentions of the blog, mostly in footnotes) and I couldn't find them looking elsewhere. So it fails the basic notability criteria. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I listed above, two of which specifically include Gates of Vienna among the most important websites of the Counterjihad movement, fully comply to the criteria of being "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". They even more than comply to this criteria by coming from peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, single mentions to the blog in articles does not qualify as the subject of that article (or even of the paragraph). You are happy claiming the subject of an editorial in a peer-reviewed journal (that itself wasn't peer reviewed, by the way) that mentions the blog briefly in a footnote before moving on to talk more about some Ferry in Norway. Great, that's where we disagree. My evidence is this: There is not an article in Lexis database or in this discussion which has devoted more than a sentence or two to the blog, and rarely alone usually grouped with other blogs (as you note). Your evidence is this: But it has been mentioned by people. Other people can read for themselves and decide if random mentions of something in an article is the subject or if the subject of the article is something more substantive. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Lexis database do you refer to by the way? A full-text search of the help namespace yields 0 hits. Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not refer to it either. This database doesn't seem relevant in any meaningful way for establishing notability here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis is one of the major news source databases available. It isn't perfect, but is pretty good (they actually also run Google News, by the way). And used in wikipedia notability discussions often. I'm not engaging in this discussion any longer. My claim is this: There are not reputable sources that have devoted any significant time to "Gates of Vienna". None of your sources disprove this claim, they just show that it is mentioned in good sources, and the LexisNexis search finds none either. Gates of Vienna does not meet the notability guidelines right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (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.