Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrontPage magazine.com (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 was keep. —Doug Bell talk 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FrontPage magazine.com

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
FrontPage magazine.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Propaganvertizing, NN per WP:WEB and WP:ORG; it's basically a conservative blog, and the article is primarily an unencyclopedic list of contributors. A good alternative would be to merge with or redirect to David Horowitz. Note that the article's first AfD is here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The previous AfD seems to confirm the notability of the subject, and there is even one source provided in the article. I expect that there are many more if we only look. Wikipedia also has articles on Adolf Hitler and the KKK, which are not "propaganvertizing" -- so why is this one? --N Shar 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the David Horowitz Freedom Center or to David Horowitz himself. THere was really no need to take this to AfD; just merge and redirect. Walton monarchist89 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Some points below from the past AfD:
  • There are over 50 discrete articles on wikipedia linking to the page in question, with further supports usefulness, if not notability per se.[1]
  • Over 1 million google hits [2] when excluding the domain name variations.
  • Mentions in other outlets as a leading source for its associated political group [3]
  • In fact, the bourgeois revolution has been joined by such prominent neocon institutions as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, Frontpagemag.com...[4] Lew Rockwell
  • Appears on GoogleNews [5]
  • Past AfD[6].
  • The list of columnists and contributors is a regular who's who, with over 15 people having their own articles on Wikipedia; including but not limited to:
  • Cited as reading material for FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project: [7]
  • Analysis of FrontPage Magazine by CounterPunch.Org: [8]
  • Critique of FrontPage by Voltairenet: [9]
  • Washington Post cited interviews by Frontpage: [10][11]
  • CNN cited interviews by Frontpage: [12]
  • Will see what else I can dig up. First Common Dreams AfD now this? Seems like political fighting. --NuclearZer0 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't even know what "Common Dreams" is. Anyway, the David Horowitz article is a better place to discuss the magazine as it is a high-quality (almost GA-class) article with several dedicated contributors. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It'd be nice if more of what you've found was integrated into the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep as NuclearZer0's points per notability are hard to disagree with, but might also sensibly be a section of David Horowitz. (On the other hand, it's clearly not only his work, nor only notable because of its association with him.) Also, if kept, I think it should be moved to FrontPageMagazine.com. — brighterorange (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - the site's alexa rank is consistent with notable publications such as The New Republic and The Weekly Standard, definitely notable. I don't see "propaganvertising" - a horrible-sounding portmanteau that should be immediately abolished from wikipedia. GabrielF 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comparing with those two articles is akin to comparing apples and oranges; frontpagemag doesn't have a print version, so the standards for notability are higher. Also, the articles on those publications are well-developed and do a far better job of establishing notability. Finally, Alexa wasn't a measure of WP:WEB the last time I checked. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      If Frontpage gets 1.5 million readers a month, as they claim (and it doesn't seem unreasonable given the alexa rank) than they reach a larger audience than some of the most influential publication's in the US. Given their large readership and the high caliber of their contributors, I think your claim that they are not notable doesn't holds water. GabrielF 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - this is a commonly read and cited site and if removed, then many others need to be as well on both sides of the politicial divide. The deletion of this seems to be a POV statement. 70.96.163.100 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.96.163.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • One of the 'delete' commentors User:Disavian also has been going to many pages and removing links to the page under discussion. This appears to be vandalism in anticipation of a deletion or an attempt to make it appear less cited. 70.96.163.100 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.96.163.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Frontpagemag fails WP:RS. I was removing the sources in good faith. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Or smerge. Non notable website. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The website is so not notable that about 15 of its writers have articles on Wikipedia, its interviews are cited in Washington Post and CNN, it was railed in the Bernard Goldbergs book "Arrogance" and over 50 articles here on Wikipedia link to the Frontpage article. --NuclearZer0 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep, of course. The nomination is "per WP:WEB and WP:ORG", i.e. notability. So, let's go straight to [WP:N}, first sentence: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." NuclearZer0 has shown it's notable. beyond a reasonable doubt, so the nomination is DOA. But it should be renamed FrontPage Magazine (capitalized P & M) per [13].Andyvphil 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless people can find more sourcing, it doesn't have enough. Delete. - Denny 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Are you refering to the sources in the article or does your comment include the sources I provided above? --NuclearZer0 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I strongly disagree with the political POV of FrontPage. However, it clearly meets the central criterion of notability by being the primary subject "of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", as noted above by Nuclear. Though IDONTLIKEIT, it is clearly notable. Vassyana 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why aren't these in the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the article is a stub. Because certain editors would rather waste everyone's time trying to cleanse Wikipedia of subjects they don't like rather than improve the content. Hipocrit in particular seems to be carrying this to the point of vandalism. [14] [15][16] Andyvphil 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"ATTENTION!...this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors..." Please contribute to the discussion, don't just "vote". As Brighterorange noted, FPM is "clearly not only [Horowitz's] work, nor only notable because of its association with him" (Glazov has an article on Wikipedia as well, for a start). Further, content such as the list of contributors would unreasonably clutter Horowitz's page, which is already long enough despite undeveloped sections. The content of the current stub could be accommodated in the DHFC article...but Hipocrit has put that up for deletion too. What, exactly, is the encyclopedic purpose of shoehorning multiple notable subjects into a single article? Wikipedia is not a Paper Encylopedia! WP:NOT#PAPER Andyvphil 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It is notable, but not so notable that it would not be better merged into the larger article. Merging would eliminate some redundancy, and give us one better page instead of three or four mediocre pages. It is a judgement call. Reasonable men may differ, but they should not call vandalism any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and should not presume to lecture their fellows in all-caps. Overuse of capital letters, especially with exclamation marks, is one of the first signs of incipient jackassery. The next phase involves the use of italics, and then bold text. After the onset of tertiary symptoms, including the use of colored fonts and, in extreme cases, the blink tag, recovery is virtually unheard of. Tom Harrison Talk 01:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please try to be civil, he was just asking you to explain your point, your sarcasm was unneeded. --NuclearZer0 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Harrison didn't notice the quote markes before the capitalized word. If he looks at the top of this page he will see that I left out the enlarged text, contrasting background, red borders, and other signs of full-out jackassery that the sysop responsible for the box is guilty of. None of which got his attention, apparently.
I apparently got his attention, but he does seem to have a problem understanding what I said. At the risk of "lecturing", let me further clarify that "discussion" is an interactive process, not just two sides spouting their views. So, first I'll respond to him: merging would indeed reduce redundancy. If the content of FPM were already in DHFC I would not argue strongly for spinning it off until it was more developed. But by "the larger article" I assume he means David Horowitz. First, see WP:SIZE. Second, please respond to the two points I made in my first response to your "vote". Then I'll respond to your response, and you can respond, and we'll eventually clarify what points we actually disagree or *GASP* maybe even come to an agreement.
BTW, I'm not calling vandalism "any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia". Disavian's proposal is wrong-headed, but he actually shows signs of being a reasonable person who can be persuaded to see the error of his ways, and I hope will prove equally persuadable should/when I fall into error. Hipocrite is a different case. I wrote that what he was doing was approaching vandalism, and I am more and more persuaded that the assumption of good faith has to at some point be recognized as either a delusion or beside the point. I'm not his psychiatrist. He may honestly think that what he is doing is reasonable. But it isn't. [23] Andyvphil 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my sarcasm. I guess there is really no reason to think you are more likely than anyone else to use bold text and capital letters. I continue to think we would do better with one good page than three less good. I would not like to see a clutch of David Horowitz pages like that we had a few months ago of pages about the life and works of Alex Jones (radio). Whatever advantage there may be to organization in having more pages is outweighed by not having relevent material on one page but having redundant material on others; by having fewer editors following each page; by changes getting out of sync; and by some pages developing as pov forks of others. That is what I think and why. Beyond that, I am content to leave it to the closer's judgement. Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Travb's "vote" had a timestamp, but no usertag. How'd he do that? Anyway, after referring to the edit history, I added the tag. Andyvphil 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as its notability has been established above. Merging it to any one of its authors would make very little sense when it has similar Alexa ratings to TNR etc. I do suggest that the sourcing here be more integrated into the entry though. TewfikTalk 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Many many prominent commentators use frontpagemag and millions of people read its content. It is both notable and useful source of information, although it needs to be cleaned up and expanded. Otherwise, it is baseless to delete it. Guy Montag 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. Meets WP:N guidelines for WP:WEB and WP:ORG. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per NuclearZer0 and add sources. --tickle me 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per NuclearUmpf and Sefringle. The notability has already been well-established in this discussion. Beit Or 11:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP for all the reasons above, and shame on the users (you know who you are) who abuse the AfD process for political brinksmanship. L0b0t 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This is bad faith in the extreme. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ? It's its own entity, distinct from Horowitz, unlike some of the samizdat publications that are one-person jobbies. Gzuckier 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. Bad faith nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per User:Andyvphil. It has the same level of notability/notoriety as CounterPunch. Although I don't read either, I see them both quoted often by sources on both "sides of the aisle". I don't see merging with David Horowitz since the man and the publication aren't synonumous. Another editor recommended merging this article with David Horowitz Freedom Center, but that article has also been AfD'd ... which makes me wonder if they're both being deprecated since they don't support some editors' personal political views. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the move, since it is notable as itself.--Sefringle 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep asserts notability and is a separate entity from David Horowitz. Unbelievable that it is being nominated. Rkevins 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no merge. And rename per User:Andyvphil. Obviously at least as notable as CounterPunch, and not synonymous with David Horowitz. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep i think the title is badly namedSlideAndSlip 21:21, 13 February 2007 (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.