Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservative Underground (2nd nomination)
Previously AfD'd here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground), which resulted in a No Consensus Keep. AfD seems to have degenerated into a bit of a political squabble. I renominating this because it is a forum that doesn't meet WP:WEB from everything I see.--Isotope23 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. The Alexa ranking is 45,155, which isn't horrible, but the article is POV and a quasi-attack page against Democratic Underground (although I grant you the site was explicitly created as an attack site). "It allows both liberals and conservatives to post, but insists that liberals back their arguments up with facts." And conservatives don't have to do so? At the very least the article needs a massive rewrite. RGTraynor 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep And Democratic underground isn't an attack site? At least conservative underground allows liberals to even post. Democratic underground deletes any posts contrary to their POV, and then bans the users., in the meantime the poster is mercilessly flamed by rabid liberals. It deserves notability as a response to Democratic Underground, which was notably big, and the Alexa ranking looks good to me. Suggest an article rewrite, but keep ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article makes no claim of notability, no evidence that the site meeds WP:WEB. Pete.Hurd 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just because DU is a notable website does not mean every response to it is notable. It's google doesn't come up very well, only 3 relavant sites that I saw, itself, wiki article, and its merchandise site. Personally all of these Politics Underground sites need to get out of the Underground and Vote.--Tollwutig 16:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Forum is not notable.--RWR8189 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. 'Notable' and 'important' are not the same thing (we saw that with Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign, in which he was treated like a nobody off the street rather than who he was: the elected co-chair of the largest Congressional caucus and the man who derailed his own political career to stop a crooked corporate get-rich-quick scheme.) CU might not be 'notable', but it is important. Katzenjammer 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment' - The latter is seriously debatable at best (important how? to whom? to anyone other than a member?) and outside the purview of Wikipedia. The former is what matters here. RGTraynor 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep : sigh, another politically motivated deletion , related to the ones posted about "People For Change" and "Progressive Independent"... actually , a deletion was attempted on this one before , but it failed , now they're at it again. Amfortas 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, alexa rank isn't that bad but it isn't comparable to some of the top political forums that have established non-Afdable articles here. The forum also fails WP:WEB (unless one of the three notability critera per web can be met then I'll stick with delete vote but it notability can be established I'll change my vote).--Jersey Devil 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
