Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground
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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservative Underground
Does not appear to meet WP:WEB due to low Alexa page ranking. Also does not appear to meet WP:NOT BenBurch 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. BenBurch 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Democratic Underground is notable. Free Republic is notable. Those two do not make this notable. Daniel Case 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nomination. Not notable. Poor ranking. No coverage in the media. Dr Debug 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable web forum. 49 registered users.—Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:16Z- According to CU's home page, there are 2,429 registered users and 566,509 posts. Where did you get that number? Rhobite 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Websita non grata Caribmon 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is almost certainly part of a petty ongoing battle between rival groups. It is also helping rid WP of nn, trivial webcruft, so let's be grateful. Eusebeus 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a well-known web forum with thousands of users and half a million posts. Ben Burch also vandalized the link to CU from Democratic Underground: [1] Rhobite 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide a WP:CITEation for "well known" as testimony of Wikipedia editors is not verification.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)- I notice you have no problem with "delete, nn" voters. This is a double standard. Are you following me around now? Rhobite 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the second question which seems to fail to notice that I've contributed to about a million AfDs that were Rhobite-free, and answer the second. I do have, and have expressed publicly many times, my problems with "D NN" recomendations. If they have done their checking to determine that something is not notable, show us. Which, if you will scroll up, they have done. They have checked the number of registered users, checked the Alexa (which WP:WEB doesn't mention now, by the way), they have provided something to argue against. Which I notice that you have done, kudos to you. We should fight facts with facts, and ambigious claims like "it's notable" are not facts. The number of registered users really doesn't mean anything either way, it fails WP:V. Of course, I cannot imagine why a site would claim a lower number, but that's not relevent. Has this been mentioned in something that qualifies as a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Has it won a major award? Etc etc etc.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the second question which seems to fail to notice that I've contributed to about a million AfDs that were Rhobite-free, and answer the second. I do have, and have expressed publicly many times, my problems with "D NN" recomendations. If they have done their checking to determine that something is not notable, show us. Which, if you will scroll up, they have done. They have checked the number of registered users, checked the Alexa (which WP:WEB doesn't mention now, by the way), they have provided something to argue against. Which I notice that you have done, kudos to you. We should fight facts with facts, and ambigious claims like "it's notable" are not facts. The number of registered users really doesn't mean anything either way, it fails WP:V. Of course, I cannot imagine why a site would claim a lower number, but that's not relevent. Has this been mentioned in something that qualifies as a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Has it won a major award? Etc etc etc.
- I notice you have no problem with "delete, nn" voters. This is a double standard. Are you following me around now? Rhobite 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide a WP:CITEation for "well known" as testimony of Wikipedia editors is not verification.
- Delete forum vanity. --Revolución (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I note that the CU article has been vandalized countless times. Anything which is popular enough to attract such a legion of politically motivated vandals is popular enough to keep. --Hansnesse 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Does it occur to you that by this criterion, anyone can get anything to be "kept" merely by finding an open proxy and vandalising? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but I find the likelihood of that to be extremely low. I don't think that is what is going on here. --Hansnesse 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Does it occur to you that by this criterion, anyone can get anything to be "kept" merely by finding an open proxy and vandalising? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Popular website for both Freepers and DUmmies... er... DUers. When we're done attacking each other's wiki articles, can we go back to insulting the other's politics?--WinOne4TheGipper 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- brenneman = broken record. What demonstrates it's popular per Wikipedia:Reliable sources? This isn't a vote, it's a debate. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Quarl. Currently not notable. Stifle 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Democratic Underground as a single sentence or paragraph. Andjam 12:04, 16 January 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.
