Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Socialist Web Site (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 keep. Michig (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Socialist Web Site[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 website was number 41,992 by popularity in the world in September 2017 and has since sunk even lower. Do we really need articles about sites as small and unpopular as this one (especially those that routinely post russian propaganda)? P.S. Optionally we can discuss merging the article into the article about the Fourth International Openlydialectic (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are from the site itself or completely unrelated, fails WP:A7 startTerminal {haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's being referred to in articles from various reputable sources the Washington Times for example. As such its reasonable for people to look it Wikipedia to see what its about. While 41,992 seems a large number in the context of 644,000,000 or whatever active websites its actually fairly near the top end and while not comparable with top newsites is in the appropriate range with some newspaper regionals and the better alternative media outlets. I'm not persuaded by a merge and it might cause more problems than it would solve; I'd like to see these entities kept separate. The results from the previous AfD also seem to remain valid.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~selective Merge to~~ International Committee of the Fourth International, the ORG of which it is the website. Page is heavily PRIMARY sourced and there does not appear to be a lot of SIGCOV. WP:RS coverage of this web page. World Socialist Website appears to be in more common usage than World Socialist Web Site. There is a listing [1] in The Guardian describing "World Socialist Website: Internet centre of the International Committee of the Fourth International, which opposes war on Iraq, and more generally the capitalist market system." Several reliable-looking books [2] also describe it as a website of the International Committee of the Fourth International.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Djm-leighpark.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that despite assertions in the 2007 AfD that WP:SIGCOV exists, and a decade of talk page discussions about the need for and attempts to provide INDEPTH, INDEPENDENT sources, this page is still almost devoid of INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT sources. For over a decade it has stood as a shining example of Wikipedia:Citation overkill relying on PRIMARY sources. Drive-by assertions of notability, and finding a mention of this site in the Washington Times are not helpful. What we need is actual INDEPENDENT, SIGCOV. I suspect that an editor familiar with the internecine struggles between Trotskyites and other socialist movements could help us out here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When this article was originally nominated for deletion 11 years ago, seven editors voted to keep, and only two to delete, with the nominator stating that they were no longer confident in their nomination.

Now, the deletion rationale is supposed to be that the site's Alexa rank is 41,992 (it's now 49,754), and that the site is "small and unpopular." The WSWS is listed in Category:American news websites [3], where the first five pages listed under the first alphabetic heading "A" are:

ABA Journal, the American Bar Association News Service, rank = 68,660.
Airways News, rank = 10,874,553
Alabama Political Reporter, rank = 519,474
All Headline News, rank = 11,197,034
All Things Digital, rank = 369,280

The WSWS has a higher ranking than all these sites. Of all sites listed under “W”, the WSWS is ranked lower than seven (beaten, for instance, by weather.com), but is ranked higher than six (including higher than our own flagship news service, wikinews.org).

Another supposed rationale for deletion is that the site "routinely post[s] russian [sic] propaganda." That allegation is not a rationale for deletion. Nor is it supported by any evidence. That's not surprising: the site routinely attacks the Putin government and Russian oligarchy [4][5][6]. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Trotskyism knows that Trotskyists opposed both the Stalinist regime and the later restoration of capitalism.

A search on Google Scholar shows the site is cited by thousands of academic publications. The site was referenced just yesterday by Taibbi in ‘’Rolling Stone’’ [7], and last year the NYT, on the front page of their technology section, dedicated an article to the WSWS’ claim that google’s new search algorithm demotes left wing sites [8].

Obviously this is a strong keep. -Darouet (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - invald rationale; reasonably notable, often cited / republished. At the same time the article is full of original research: "red flags": phrases like "articles are often collated" suppotred only by refs to the very these "collated" articles. Same with "periodically undertakes", etc. Someone please prune these mercilessly. Unfortunately I am computerly endifficultened :). - üser:Altenmann >t 05:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Y
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Although the article is poor, full of superfluous puff, and poorly sourced, mainly from primary sources, I think the topic itself is notable enough to keep the article or, as per EM Gregory sensible suggestion, merge with that of the organisation which runs it, and then work on improving the sourcing and removing fluff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2018 (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.