Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place (3rd 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 Opabinia regalis 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry's Place

Harry's Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

nn vanity alexa 100,000 it was deleted before, somehow it has reappeared. Skrewler 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• See also: 1st nomination and second nomination.
• This was found in the second nomination, which was incorrectly titled as the first. Procedural listing. MER-C 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looking at the history, it was undeleted to userspace, greatly improved, and moved back into the article namespace. But it's still short on notability and reliable sources, aside from a few mentions in the Guardian. delete again. BCoates 07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:WEB. Blog has just been nominated again for 2006 Best Weblog awards (see here). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the number of references listed is impressive, but most of them are links to other non-notable blogs, forums, or internal links to the site itself. Only trivial coverage of the subject by an online newspaper is claimed. Fails WP:WEB. - Femmina 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment on that vote: We seem to go around and around on this one. First, someone claims that the press coverage was not sufficient. Then I or others add information showing all the mentions, and put it in the article to prove it does meet WP:WEB. Then everyone agrees that excessive press linking just to prove WP:WEB is no longer needed because the article clearly meets it, and so it is pared down. Then someone nominates for deletion again on the grounds that the articles does not prove that it meets WP:WEB. So, here we go again. All significant mentions, with the page number for you to check in your newspaper library:
    • Nick Cohen, "Saddam's very own party", New Statesman, June 7, 2004, p. 26.
    • Daniel Finkelstein, "Police crack down", The Times, September 15, 2004, p. 2.
    • Nick Cohen, "Left's must-see film", Evening Standard, November 10, 2004, p. 15: "Harry'S Place is a website which struggles to uphold the values of the decent Left".
    • Janet Street-Porter, "Spare us these monuments to vanity", The Independent, December 23, 2004, p. 29.
    • Steven Vass, "Bloggers ready for general election debut", The Herald, April 10, 2005, p. 6.
    • David Aaronovitch, "Lib Dems in the land of wolves", The Guardian, May 3, 2005, p. 5.
    • Rhys Blakely, "The Week on the Web", The Times, May 21, 2005, p. 38.
    • Henry McDonald, "In defence of bigotry: The Religious Hatred Bill will only feed prejudice and lawyers", The Observer, June 12, 2005, p. 27: "On my newly found spiritual home, the sane left, robustly secular, anti-fundamentalist website Harry's Place ..."
    • Daniel Finkelstein, "Politeness in the photocopier queue is why we're losing the War on Terror", The Times, July 13, 2005, p. 18.
    • Rhys Blakely, "Bloggers", The Times, July 16, 2005, p. 40.
    • Nick Cohen, "Cool logic our only weapon against the preachers of hate", Evening Standard, August 9, 2005, p. 15: "The broadcasters can go to the "Harry's Place" website, which has become the meeting place of the antifascist Left."
    • Mary Ann Sieghart, "Fair-weather fan, moi? But it's the perfect way to watch sport", The Times, September 1, 2005, p. 2.
    • "Net profits", The Times, September 17, 2005, p. 38.
    • "Web page: Guardian.co.uk: Top Stories", The Guardian, September 24, 2005, p. 32.
    • "Media Matters", The Observer, October 2, 2005, p. 9.
    • 'Norman Johnson' (pseud.), "Free Radical: Don't pretend Harry's exit is just coincidence", The Guardian, October 8, 2005, p. 29. It should be noted that the Guardian's 'Norman Johnson' column was started as a pastiche of the politics of Harry's Place.
    • Oliver Burkeman, "The new commentariat", The Guardian, November 17, 2005, p. 8: "Harry's Place, the "blog" to which he is now a prolific contributor, has become one focus of Britain's culture of political blogging"
    • "I am... Peter Tatchell", The Independent, January 31, 2006, p. 11.
    • Ed Caesar, "Meet the bloggerati", The Independent, March 20, 2006, p. 10.
    • Catherine Bennett, "What would George Orwell say?", The Guardian, April 13, 2006, p. 5.
    • Catherine Bennett, "Men used to go fishing when they wanted to get away from 'the wife' and swap smutty jokes. Now they take up blogging", The Guardian, June 1, 2006, p. 5.
    • "Blogospheric pressure" (letter from Keith Flett), The Guardian, June 5, 2006, p. 4.
    • "Politicobloggery: A taster's guide to six of the best", The Observer, July 9, 2006, p. 11.
    • Michael Gove, "Hamas house of horror is not for me", The Times, July 26, 2006, p. 7.
    • Michael Gove, "Despite any misgivings we cannot deny Israel the right to defend itself", Sunday Herald, July 30, 2006, p. 9.
  • Now I call that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", what do you call it? Also, it has been twice nominated for best UK blog in the weblog awards, which meets WP:WEB #2. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Maybe your problem is that you insist on keeping too many external links to blogs on the page. Consider replacing them with a link to a page with the above list of pubblications. - Femmina 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Most of the links are to articles on Harry's Place which are there to back up the text. The reason there are fewer press links is that they were removed for reasons discussed here. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, it's more than enough for me. Please do not consider my vote. -- Femmina 13:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The first 5 of these I could look up on the web [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Are entirely trivial, one-line references, either using it as an example of a blog or as a substitute for a man-on-the-street quote. BCoates 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep UK political commentary blog with plenty of coverage (see above). Note that Alexa is a flawed metric for measuring popularity. Catchpole 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Alexa is not relevant site to measure popularity of the web page. People don't like spyware and Alexa toolbar it that kind of a so called tool. I agree with Catchpole. --MaNeMeBasat 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - enough references in 'real' media to this blog to make it notable. Pete Fenelon 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I was the one who recreated the page, along with User:Dbiv. I thought the decision to delete was based on an improper appreciation of the relevance of Harry's Place in UK political culture. I admit we didn't follow "proper" procedure when going about recreating the page, but as it stands, it is now a well-referenced article about a notable topic. I welcome this AfD as an opportunity to finally clear up lingering questions about the suitability of this article. Peter G Werner 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable blog, featuring prominent hjournalists in its comments section/readership.--Red Deathy 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not particularly keen on articles about blogs, but it is pretty obvious this one meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But what is the point - Dbiv and Werner will just recreate it if it gets deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.101.187.61 (talk • contribs).

Comment – Actually, I would respect an informed consensus decision to delete, the "informed" (concerning the notability of Harry's Place) part being what was missing in the earlier AfD votes. Peter G Werner 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Well it is a great pity you could not have done so when it was deleted on (what?) TWO previous occasions - or is consensus only acceptable when it agrees with your brand of 'politics'? What arrogance - all the other votes were not "informed". Hear that folks? - vote against Werner and you are obviously stupid and should be ignored until you vote for the right result. Sounds familiar... Hilarious. I am starting to love the way you use and abuse wikipedia. Keep it up Werner and Dbiv - you guys are priceless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.101.187.61 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 December 2006.

Consensus can change. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Keep the most obvious keep of the week so far. (except for Iqbal) DGG 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pers second (and successful) nomination. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: This user, and the nominator, appear to be part of an organised ballot-stuffing exercise against blogs, judging by their user pages. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It really shouldn't matter if people have a bias, there are real wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB which this topic meets. --Quirex 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I'd like to retract my delete. However how can I be part of "an organised ballot-stuffing exercise against blogs" when AfD is not a vote? Huh? Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:WEB per the giant list of references above, please merge that list with this article so it isn't nominated again based on WP:WEB. --Quirex 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:WEB per the commenters above with an exceptional number of non-trivial sources. Yamaguchi先生 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which one is non-trivial? BCoates 06:00, 15 December 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.