Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instapundit

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. Definitely notable, but may need cleanup. Sr13 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instapundit

Instapundit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been tagged as needing citations since mid-April. The article is unsourced and seems to be a repository for blogcruft. It's populated with references to comments about Instapundit by other blogs but lacking any reference to reliable sources. Without reference to such sources, there's nothing to establish the notability of this blog per WP:WEB. Deranged bulbasaur 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This is getting ridiculous. Instapundit is one of the most visited sites on the web. There are no less than 27 references given in the article. 27! Where's the nomination for the Daily Kos? Nick mallory 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So your arguments are "it's popular" and WP:WAX? That doesn't address the concern for which I nominated it at all. All those references are to other blogs that are self published and not reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Many of them are even self-references. Deranged bulbasaur 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're arguing that it's 203,485,771 page views (that's 203 billion, 485 million and 771) don't matter? When I gave sources on the other AfD's recently opened about such sites I was constantly told that references in the New York Times etc didn't count. Might I enquire what sort of sources would satisfy you? This piece from the BBC [1] says that Instapundit, and Daily Kos, were being looked at by one in ten US internet users every day during the last presidential election campaign for example. Nick mallory 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not 203 billion, that's 203 million.Mackan 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right, Instapundit has had over 203 million pages views. Nick mallory 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Your conversations with other people on other Afds are of little pertinence here. As for the first part, see WP:ATA#This number is big. Deranged bulbasaur 12:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • May I also mention that the article you provided is about a poll, and it claims that one in ten users looked at political blogs during the presidential election, such as Instapundit, and that is the only thing it says about it. That would not count as a non-trivial source (not saying you said it was, but just mentioning that). I'm not disagreeing (or even agreeing) with you, but just mentioning it. --RazorICE 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are you nuts? The Washington Post sure thinks he's notable. So does the New York Times. So does the LA Times. I could keep going, but really. VT hawkeyetalk to me 12:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you link to specific articles? I had a look through those google searches you provided (though very quickly) and could find no non-trivial and non-opinion article. --RazorICE 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • From the Post alone, I'd say that inclusion of the author on an interactivity panel by the Post is an editorial judgment of significance in the blog world. Early significance in the warblog genre also established by the Post. Doing the Sunday talk show rounds, CNN and C-SPAN thought in 2006 he was notable enough to feature on their programs. As to the contention that site popularity is unimportant, I'll look forward to an AfD on every newspaper outside of the New York Times and Washington Post next, because without circulation numbers they haven't got much of a claim either. VT hawkeyetalk to me 12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I did not see your reply before. May I just point out that the second of the articles you pointed out only briefly describe Instapundit. I'm not sure if those count as good enough sources for Wikipedia. (I could be wrong, I think we need the opinion of a few more editors). As for the other two, I'm not really sure either. --RazorICE 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't possibly address indiscriminate google searches. Many of those hits are just because a section of the newspaper's website links the blog in every article, without even mentioning it in the story. Deranged bulbasaur 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the book Blogging America: Political Discourse in a Digital Nation [2] Barbara O'Brien writes in detail about Instapundit from page 20 to page 22 [3] Is that the sort of thing you're after? Nick mallory 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Alright, so that's an alright source. But is it reliable? Is it just an opinion? --RazorICE 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's an independent, non trivial third party source which helps establish the notability of Instapundit on Wikipedia. Nick mallory 12:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, but you say that O'Brien "writes in detail about Instapundit from page 20 to page 22", yet, I only see approximately four paragraphs, only describing what Instapundit is (and how popular it is, etc.) on page 20. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place? --RazorICE 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Keep - Keep per Madman's note below. it seems notable (for being the most visited blog in the world? according to Wired) Gets over 200 thousand visits per day. Now, I agree that that alone does not certify notability, however the article only seems to source one reliable source (well, at least semi-reliable, the Wired article which is source #2 I believe). All of the other sources seem to be to other blogs and the site itself... Weak Delete until better sources are provided. --RazorICE 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the book Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge [4] By Cass R. Sunstein Instapundit is discussed at some length [5]Nick mallory 12:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A much better source, that claims that Instapundit has appeared in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News. It would be good to find examples of those, as well (apart from the ones already linked to here). --RazorICE 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That statement doesn't seem to make any sense Razor. I'm guessing you mean that, according to you anyway, mentions of Instapundit by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post don't count towards notability. I wonder on what logical basis you are making that assertion? Nick mallory 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I meant to say would you be able to link to specific posts from Washington Post, Wall Street, etc. But nevermind, I'm changing my vote per Madman's note below. --RazorICE 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article started in Feb 2004. No reason to delete it after 3 years. A lot of persons contributed to it, considering the topic notable.--MariusM 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Week keep on the condition that more reliable sources are introduced. I think this link is rather convincing.Mackan 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per VT hawkeyetalk . Numerous reliable sources have covered this topic, showing that it satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Nonsense to keep claiming that Washington Post, and New York Times aren't good enough sources. Wired is reliable, and calls Instapundit the world's most read blog with over 200,000 visits a day. Four paragraphs in the O'Brien book cited is substantial and reliable. Edison 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Speedy Close. This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Please review Wikipedia's deletion policy, which you should have done before you nominated this article for deletion. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding the arguments above, when I do a quick search using Thomson Gale's PowerSearch, I get 119 articles from various publications, including Times and U.S. News & World Report among others, that make reference to Instapundit, 31 being from peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I get 166 references to Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit's author, who is a respected law professor and has written at least one acclaimed book about blogging. 36 references to Reynolds are from peer-reviewed scholarly journals; heck, some articles are written by Glenn Reynolds. This site meter may also interest you. I'm not understanding the opposition here. Instapundit's one of (if not the) most viewed blogs in the world. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close Obviously notable. AFD is not cleanup on demand. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Tim.bounceback(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen) 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and close speedily. The amount of hits it receives alone is sufficient to determine that it is notable. --Edwin Herdman 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and cleanup per above users. The website gets millions of hits daily, and many reliable sources have covered it; therefore, I see no reason for its page to be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Glenn Reynolds, the author of this blog. This will eliminate the redundancy between the two articles. As much as I personally think this blog is notable, its Alexa ranking is not high enough for me to justify a separate article about the blog. --Metropolitan90 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources indicate its notability.Close to a speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per several comments above establishing the blog's notability. Whether Glenn Reynolds has notability outside from the blog is a separate question -- if yes, we're right to have two articles, and if no, then Glenn Reynolds should redirect to Instapundit. Either way, this article should stay, and should stay at this title. JamesMLane t c 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy, Obvious Keep. Most-visited one-person blog ever. (BTW, Prof Reynolds, who holds a named chair is notable enough for an article even without the blog. And his book Army of Davids is probably also notable — it was widely reviewed and sold well). CWC 10:02, 25 May 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.