Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Voice (second 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 of the debate was kept no consensus to delete Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissident Voice

This article fails WP:WEB The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Therefore the content fails to meet WP:VER using reliable sources which are secondary sources. The content is therefore original research, unencyclopedic, and possibly autobiographic. Ste4k 15:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Per a specific request, I'm offering my opinion: although the website does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB, agreed, I think the participation of Chomsky makes this a notable site. The article as stands, however, needs heavy clean-up in order to be anywhere near encyclopedic. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural keep: This renomination comes less than 1 month after the previous nomination was closed, having achieved consensus. –Dicty (T/C) 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per AfD guidelines. Sorry, but you're gonna have to wait a couple more months to AfD this again. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on Procedure The previous nomination was on May 28, 2006. On my calendar here it says we are now in July. Am I missing something here? Per the guidelines: articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations. Ste4k 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From what I've seen, articles shouldn't be renominated for AfD for at least 2-3 months after the previous AfD. I'd like an admin to come in and clarify the procedure. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Premature and incorrect nomination. --TruthbringerToronto 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination).--Striver 21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ste4k's comment on procedure. I don't think this can be renominated yet. --Pboyd04 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then pull it off, I am convinced that there are various groups that can disregard policy for whatever reasons. I read the previous AfD Striver, but there isn't any evidence in that article about anything that answers my nomination reasons. This is not about the content of this particular web site. This is about the lack of content about this web site anywhere else. The article needs to address and establish a reasonable atmosphere of trust with the reader that it isn't just some sort of hoax, or group of people in a basement making things up. Are there any articles in newspapers? Any awards given? Any mention by other established publishers, etc? The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Those are the criteria to meet. And there isn't anything in that article that suggests that it meets those. Why not? Ste4k 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, read the name: Dissident Voice. --Striver 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote to me "I still do not understand your comment. By the way, "Bro" is both incorrect and inappropriate. Thanks." [1]

I meant that it natural that mainstream press do not mention them a lot, it due to their very nature: They are the dissident voice, the voice that do not conform with the maintream. You expect the mainstream to report on what they dont report? To demant mainstream coverage from a site like this is unreasonable, the notablility crieteria are different. Regarding "bro", i wont call you that if you dont like it, but i would appreciate to know why it is "incorrect and inappropriate".--Striver 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• In regard to mainstream then, I guess it's okay if I have an article about my own small buisness' and web sites? They certainly aren't going to get any mainstream coverage, and they also don't report what the mainstream reports. Have you considered that The Rolling Stone was one time considered anti-establishment? I think it's a rather hypocritical argument that a dissident newsletter should be established in an encyclopedia that regards consensus paramount. Don't you? Regarding the inappropriate use, your comment is incorrect regarding my gender, and neither my gender nor comments regarding me personally have anything to do with discussing this article. Ste4k 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You did make a good point... let me think out a good reply *thinking*... Ok, got it! Well, you just stated that wikipedia uses consensus as a measure to include articles. Well, that is not correct, we dont include article on the merit that everyone likes them, rather, that they are notable. And i view a site that has been linked to by 1,078 other sites as a notable site. If you create a article about your garage, and you manage to have 1,078 other sites link to you, then i would considering voting keep to your site as well. Consired Goatse.cx, it will be impossible to get a afd through for it, but it has only been linked to by 394 sites. As for "bro", you could just ask me to say "sis". As for "comments regarding me personally have anything to do with discussing this article"... sure, as you say. Ops, sorry, i didnt mean to say "you"... --Striver 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, you've misinterpreted my statment. Your words: "you just stated that wikipedia uses consensus as a measure to include articles". My words: "an encyclopedia that regards consensus paramount.". Given Alexa's limitations, the use of Alexa as a factor to determine the notability or traffic patterns of an internet newsletter is not subjective of all Internet users. (Traffic logs of the site's servers, on the other hand, would be a far more accurate tool, but the use of traffic logs would constitute original research.) It should also be pointed out here that the Alexa traffic rank for dissidentvoice.org is 113,783 which is far less than a teenage actress who scores 3043 and it was recently determined in AfD that she wasn't notable either. So what does Alexa have to do with notability? If this group of people were truly notable even as dissidents, then the establishment would certainly be up in arms about them.

• keep: Notable. Ombudsman 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:05, 5 July 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.