Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Infidels (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Infidels[edit]

Has been nominated for speedy deletion (presumedly on the grounds that it didn't establish notability, see WP:WEB). I don't believe that it really meets the speedy deletion criteria, so I am bringing it here. In any case, the article has been around for some time, it is linked from multiple articles, and has been kept after this discussion in 2004. For the record, Internet Infidels (www.infidels.org) has an Alexa rank of 84.583; its discussion board (www.iidb.org) 95.460. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This site is really well known in the web world both by atheist/humanists and particularly christians where an awful lot of links are to refutations of stuff on this site. Whilst I agree its not the best written article there are plenty more sources to add but care is needed as as with the Richard Carrier article it can be come a case of "us versus them" in the links. As I'm not a deletion review expert I assume the no vote means this is just a discussion on the merits of the article. Sophia 08:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of; every nomination for deletion is more a discussion about the article's merits than a vote. By the "no vote" comment I intended to stress that my nomination was meant neither to support its deletion, nor its keeping; it was only made for procedural reasons. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that this site should be kept, and that the Richard Carrier article should be merged into it, because i think he is notable only for his involvement with this site. DGG 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate website operating for twelve years with monthly site-traffic exceeding 600,000 unique hits. website has an international audience. website is pure HTML with no bells and whistles. the article is little more than a stub and needs work. obligatory disclosure: member since 1997. παράδοξος 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and often-referred-to website, well worth an article. I'd like more in the article, though! Snalwibma 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an oft-referenced website in its topic area. 73 Google Scholar hits 22 Google News Archive hits Actually gets slightly more results than "secular web", incidentally, which is a generic phrase not always referring to the website. Article should be cleaned up, it has a very amateurish tone. --Dhartung | Talk 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Acalamari 18:45, 10 April 2007 (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.