Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Achse des Guten

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Achse des Guten[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, due to lack of WP:RS. The article has self published sources. It also fails following two notability criteria for websites. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. and 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is as blatant case of WP:NN as I have ever seen. Only a primary source and that is a blog (so invalid per WP:BLOGS). It was tagged in 2010 as needing improvement: it hasn't shaped up so it should be shipped out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Hello, You need state your vote using Delete or Keep in AfD discussions. Please have a look at WP:AFDFORMAT. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, this is the first of these I've encountered. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Also use * instead of colons to start the message where you added your vote. You can reply using colons. Masum Reza^📞 16:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- please look at the interwiki. There are quite a few sources on the German page, some of which would seem to be reliable. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rewrite...), long-term notable blog. From the German Wikipedia's article you can see that their internal quarrels make major mainstream news: [1], [2]. Failing that, redirect to Henryk M. Broder. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the redirect idea. As a general principle (irrespective of this particular case), what makes a blog notable? Surely the author(s) would have to be very notable indeed? and convincing (RS) evidence produced that it is influential. I suggest also that articles in each language wikipedia should be notable enough to stand on their own after a reasonable time has elapsed to bring them up to scratch. If there are significant interwiki sources, it should not be a big effort to meet this test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERLANG. English Wikipedia has different notability guidelines than most other wikis. I don't know German, so I didn't bother to check it. You need to add reliable sources here to prove notability. It doesn't matter, if those sources exist there. Masum Reza^📞 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, I have just linked to two reliable sources. I am aware that the fact that the German Wikipedia has an article is at best anecdotal evidence for an AFD here, but the point is that the German article's references show that there are WP:RS talk about the blog, showing that the first of the notability criteria you mention in your nomination is satisfied. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true, Masumrezarock100 -- WP:NEXIST means that sources need to exist, not be added to the article. If the German language wiki has reliable sources, that is sufficient. And checking the interwiki is a basic aspect of WP:BEFORE, which should have been done before any nomination. matt91486 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm supposed to know that sources exist if I don't know the language? True, English Wikipedia does permit us to use sources in different languages. But how would I know if I can't identify what sources are reliable? This article has been almost abondoned. Last substantial edit was adding an image on December 2016. Masum Reza^📞 06:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recency of editing is not a criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly true but in this case the article has been tagged as needing major improvement for nine years. This has two significant implications: either the npov WP:RSs simply do not exist, or the subject is so non-notable that nobody cares. Or both. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: I will have to agree on this one. This discussion is happening because we want to confirm whether this blog is notable or not. I knew something like this would happen, that's why I started an AfD instead of PRODing it. If you want to improve this article to prove notability feel free to do so. Masum Reza^📞 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: This is a problematic argument in general: obscurity is not the same thing as WP non-notability; we have articles on plenty of obscure but notable topics that nobody touches for many years. Hence WP:IMPATIENT. It's especially problematic when the article is about a topic mainly of interest for non-English-speakers. The German Wikipedia article gets a good amount of editing interest. I haven't researched this case though so no !vote from me, at least for the moment. (Edit: Have !voted keep after checking the sources.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To steal from Terry Pratchett, nine years is a definition of impatient that I haven't come across before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the interwiki should be consulted. There are various sources from there that indicate notability. Going through them should have fallen under the onus of the nominator as a step of WP:BEFORE. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. These are all third party, reliable sources (and most of them fairly prominent, though Migazin is a bit more narrowly focused). And this is without any additional searching. These sources were already all present in the German article. The book chapter referenced (I just downloaded it) doesn't talk about it extensively, but provides an additional credible academic cite for classifying it as an anti-Islamic blog. As such, Keep. matt91486 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to reiterate NEXIST: It doesn't matter if the article is improved if the sources to indicate notability exists -- which these do regardless of if I (or anyone else) takes the time to incorporate them into the article. matt91486 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand a single one of them. Google translate does no good. I can easily say that those are third party sources but I can't prove that those are reliable. Masum Reza^📞 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I take your point that Google translate doesnt help indicate a source's reliability, you could easily look at the English language wiki articles on Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link (https://taz.de/!539420/) is not about the blog; it is about the author of the blog, so it's not a good source for any WP article about the blog itself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After verifying the sources listed by Matt91486 above, I believe this is very much a notable topic. Of particular note is the article about it in the Berliner Zeitung describing it as "the most influential German author blog" in the headline. The Die Welt article lists it as being on "the first place" for German blogs. The Migazin article discusses the blog at length. Disputes on the blog are given substantial news coverage. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see the German article for many sources on this topic, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2019 (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.