Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Post (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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Post

Liberty Post (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Post

Several months later this article still does not meet the requirements set in WP:WEB, there is no claim of notability made besides being an "anti-FReeper" site.

The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website 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 The article provides no proof that its subject meets any of these criteria. This is an easy delete --RWR8189 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Lurker ^oi! 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly even CSD A7; makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. Just another political web forum. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Removed wrong vote. --Charlene 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an important and notable libertarian / conservative forum. Good Alexa stats Alexa Stats Should be noted that nominator is an admitted Free Republic member and supporter. FR and LP have a well known adversarial relationship. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Care to explain how this blog is "well known," what its claim to notability is, how it any way satisfies WP:WEB?--RWR8189 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, has no sources or claim meeting WP:WEB. Weregerbil 11:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom this article doesn't meet WP:WEB at all. --NuclearZer0 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. Another non sequitur from FAAFA. Shocking. In any case, I don't object to this article being deleted-I suppose there are more notable articles that have met a similar fate-although I disagree that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Can we all just stop with the childish games of labeling people into little boxes please. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- article makes no claims of coverage that would lead to notability under WP:WEB- Alexa rank of 28,000 insufficient to lead me to think the subject is notable enough to merit an article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesnt seem to be noteable and the article doesnt make any claims of its nobility. As to the above non-sequitor disguised attack, the relationship of nominator to an unrelated website is irrelevant. The article needs to stand on its own without regard to the nominator and at this point, it has failed to do so. Dman727 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm an inclusionist. Maybe the article needs more work, but the nomination largely referred to the subject - Liberty Post. It IS the leading Libertarian / Conservative political forum, and also known as an important Conservative voice critical of the policies and recent direction of Free Republic. There are other political forums of much less notability that have articles on Wiki. Sorry to see it go - and I've never even posted there, nor read it more than infrequently. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm an inclusionist as well and I think it notable enough. Lawyer2b 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Because ... care to expand? --NuclearZer0 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Conservative Underground in more notable than this site, and it was deleted for failing WP:WEB in the same fashion. Crockspot 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - CU Alexa Stats vs LP Alexa Stats Not even close. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  If you think another article should be removed then you should put it up for deletion. --NuclearZer0 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and FAAFA. Not notable. --Tbeatty 06:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails all three criteria for WP:WEB. Jinxmchue 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. -THB 22:23, 25 November 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.