Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch

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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad Watch

Not notable enough (From an academic perspective, this article has NO significance AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY). It is a personal website and blog hosted by Robert Spencer. The blog is only in the top twenty thousand (precisely 20,653) most visited web sites on the internet (However, this is contested, as Ranking Dot Com locates the blog as ranked about 50,000). We do have personal websites by people who are much more notable and who have less opposing views than Spencer, but there is no wiki-page for their personal bolgs and websites. Reza1 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is also another option of merging Jihad Watch into the Spencer article. --Reza1 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Around 20,000 on alexa is pretty darn good for a blog. Googling "Jihad Watch" and "Spencer" gets you around 300,000 hits on Google. I would say if we are going to have any articles on blogs, this should be one of them. --Brianyoumans 05:27, 30
    • Well, yes, in that sense it is notable, but in an scholarly sense, it is actually not. Aside from these, the radicalist websites often make the news. This fact does not qualify them as good articles for Wikipedia. --Reza1 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)**Articles don't necessarily need to be scholarly. Just factual and referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

      • But Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. On issues related to Islam, wikipedia should merely use scholarly peer reviewed academic works. --Reza1 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This site's Alexa rating is comparable to the websites of Juan Cole and Daniel Pipes as well as National Journal's The Hotline - all of which are widely considered notable on wikipedia and in the US media at large. It's significantly higher than sites like MEMRI and Congressional Quarterly which are similarly notable. I would suggest that Jihad Watch's ranking means that it is widely read enough to warrant at least a stub or a section in the Robert Spencer article. GabrielF 17:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed Tobyk777 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Brianyoumans. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep And devellop in to a full article--CltFn 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above reasonings. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Brianyoumans. Note to closing admin: This AfD was initiated by a user who was in a WP:3RR dispute on the Robert Spencer article. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin: Please have a look at the RfC section of the talk page of Spencer. I passed 3RR because others were removing well sourced material written by academic scholars. Still don't know what does this have to do with this AfD. --Reza1 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Violation of the 3 revert is not taken lightly (how did you pass 3RR?). If Jihad Watch is the personal website of Spencer (who is notable) and you are using him as your basis for the AfD (see your opening statement of why delete), others like myself may question your intentions. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • See, you haven't study the case yourself and I don't see assuming good faith on your part. Those who were opposing me were removing well-sourced material and violating this policy. You do lightly take these violations, but when it comes to 3rr, you are so quick to point it out. --Reza1 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Could you explain what you meant with this question you asked on Spencer’s talk page. Apparently, Spencer’s book titled :"The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" bothers you, and you want it censored?? I am really questioning your reasons for this AfD. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't know what the point of this discussion is. My arguments for merging or deleting the page are there. Regarding your comment: You haven't followed our discussion there. I never wanted to have that book censored. There is an article on it. There are academic scholars such as Carl Ernst and Khaleel Mohammed who seriously question Spencer's scholarship ([1]). It is not my own point of view. Let me put it simpler: find a respected academic scholar who supports Spencer. You can’t. I contacted Prof. Norman Stillman about his opinion on the works of Spencer. He replied back to me: "I have not read any of Mr. Spencer's works and, therefore, am unable to make any fair judgments. Since he does not publish with academic presses and the titles do sound rather polemical, I have never felt a need to examine them." See, a respected academic scholar of Islam finds the titles of his book polemical. Spencer argues that my books don’t have any flaws. Really? Then why doesn’t he publish them in university presses? --Reza1 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
                • It would be reasonable to assume that Spencer doesn't publish his books via university presses because he wants people other than college students to read his works, suspects the university presses would be lax in promoting the works, and/or because he doesn't want the particular universities owning said presses any share of the proceeds.--Mike18xx 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Because, Reza, their is a massive Global Conspiracy to silence critics of Islam and to prevent them access to anything but the most fundamentalist and right-wing news outlets and publishing houses. Waaaaaaaaakkkkeee Uppppp, Reza.
  • Delete, sort of per Brianyoumans' keep, but taking the position that no blog should be included on wikipedia unless it can be sourced multiply elsewhere (Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, etc.)-Kmaguir1 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, As an author stated in the discussion page, currently there is one single point of view, to a very suspicious blog which indicates that it is unquestionable and true. This idea will not be tolerated for other websites, e.g. JewWatch wiki entry i.e. stripping out the critisms and stating it is factual. Thus far, this article seems to be a mere attempt to gain extra hits to a Web Blog! Furthermore, The JewWatch website is NOT a blog, yet this is. I strongly feel this entry should be deleted. It hold zero significance other than stating there is a Blog out there, linking it, and once entering the unquestionable, uncritizable "Blog" being bombarded with blog enteries stating repulsive things about our fellow-man! (LewisRyder 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
  • KEEP. There are thousands of Wiki articles that are less "notable"; and if an editor has discovered that an Alexa ranking is obsolete, he should correct or eliminate the references, not recommend the entire article for deletion. Furthermore, neither JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch are Spencer's "personal websites"; and neither are designed like personal blogs.--Mike18xx 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having a Wikipedia entry for a blog is not an endorsement of the material on that blog by Wikipedia; it is merely an acknowledgement that the blog is notable. If there is a controversy over whether the blog contains truthful material, that might be good material to put into the article, but it is not a reason to not have an article. Brianyoumans 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above, it is a personal blog, top 50000 or so is not notable!! Keeping this will only fuel others to place their blog on here, just to get more viewers. As noted wiki is fueling many hits to that blog, and moreover it holds nothing to a wiki user! If i create a blog which is in the top 100000 may i place it on wiki!!! (193.113.200.156 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep - It has been noted on NPR and other sources.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This entry is not up to the quality standards of others (see, for example, Engadget), and contains no noteworthy information. At a minimum, it should be merged with the Robert Spencer entry, as he runs the blog, and the blog contains a section on him, but nobody else in particular. --Yalto 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Weblogs entries should be added sparingly. As of now, JihadWatch stands at the 21,370th most popular blog on the net.[2] That doesn't classify, by any standard, as notable enough to be added.

--Kitrus 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I think you are misunderstanding how Alexa works. It is the 21,370th most viewed web address, not blog. Sites above it include stuff like, say, ford.com (3,978). The site for the American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org, is ranked #32,110. 21,370 is a pretty amazing rank, actually, for something that is basically a personal site - it must get a LOT of traffic.
  • Delete - I forgot to vote myself. --Reza1 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - At least delete the article in its current state, its become a revert war, which makes the article itself change in almost entirety many times over the course of a day or two. The article itself doesn't provide much, it basically just says that this site is out there, if that's all there is to say, then there's no point of it being on Wikipedia. The article is a mess and should be blown up and redone, or blown up and just mentioned on the Robert Spencer article. --Seventy-one 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the most notable blogs on the Internet. If we're going to have articles on any blogs at all (and I know the orchestrators of the War on Blogs would love it if we didn't, but Timecop doesn't get to make the rules), this should be one of them. Also, Alexa only measures those users ignorant enough to use Internet Explorer or another spyware-susceptible browser. Those who actually secure their computers are not counted. Rogue 9 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kindly spare me of stating that it is notable. It is arguably in the top 50,000 websites (not using Alexa), shall all 50,000 websites be placed into Wikipedia encyclopedia? It would be a mockery if that happens. Someone has yet to state one benefit of this wiki blog entry. I have been racking my brains to think of any benefit to any researcher, academic etc. which resulted in me having to eat some painkillers as there was no feasible benefit of a relatively unknown blog being placed into an encyclopedia. Oh, and "googling" gives no information about notability, I have googled the word "The" and got 14.1 billion hits, but I will not be writing an article about "The" and linking it to my personal blog (which is in the top 100,000 but is of no use in an encyclopedia). (LewisRyder 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment We actually do have an article about "The." I don't see anything wrong with all of the top 50,000 websites or so having entries here. We've got 1.3M articles right now - 50,000 of them being websites doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Bibigon 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We probably have articles on most of them already. We have articles on large corporations, important organizations, etc. - all of whom have busy sites. Brianyoumans 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Blog holds no grounds to be on Wikipedia (203.214.46.252 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong keep per above. possible bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:From his user/talk page, the user who nominated deletion appears to have no history on Wikipedia which does NOT involve critizing Spencer. --Unsigned coment by User:Mike18xx
    • Comment: I see this as a shameful bad faith comment from an admin. --Reza1 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If the Admin you are referring to is me, I did not make the comment. It was an unsigned comment placed (most likely inadvertantly) after my vote. For the record, you also appear to have criticized Bat Ye'or, so the comment is somewhat innaccurate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Robert Spencer having opposing views is irrelevant. Bibigon 16:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Brianyoumans and JungleCat Avi 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. 6SJ7 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough, the fact that it's a blog is irrelevant (and frankly probably stems from 'old school' reactionary geek bias), plus the idea that this will lead to some sort of slippery slope is ridiculous. Whether or not you think this guy--or anyone who runs a blog--is an airhead doesn't make a damn bit of difference. --Rankler 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't use this website as a source, but it's well-known enough to merit an article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article needs to be rewritten to be encyclopedic. Or, it should be merged with the article about Robert Spencer. --JuanMuslim 1m 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Robert Spencer. Evolver of Borg 08:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No WP:RS but notable - if you like, notorious. Needs some work, though. --tickle me 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, influential weblog.Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This Wikipedia blog entry appears to be created by Jihadwatch.org members, specificaly Ann Crockett (user AnnCr ?) where upon the Jihadwatch.org blog states, "wiki was one of the first places I tried to reform" an Example the wiki "battle" outlined by the bloggers. Very interesting.... so much for the single point of view, or neutral point of view theory. The bloggers appear very intent in making sure only one single point of view is made clear, and that Jihadwatch gets as many hits as possible. See the revert wars for substantial evidence, and the rude and derogatory remarks mustered from the possible apparent bloggers. Moreover, so much for the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"... and the above reasons for deleting a website blog log in an encyclopedia.
    • And the "Muslim Guild" of Wikipedians is all about exploring alternative points of view, eh wot? --Mike18xx 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being an academic who has visited Wikipedia for several years researching social sciences, this Wikipedia entry holds no significance as an Encyclopedia entry. (RupertDoughlas 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment: I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. This Wikipedia entry holds NO significance AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY--Reza1 20:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And this very insignificance is an honest and true reason you've submitted a nomination for deletion? Come on now; who do you think you're kidding? (Anybody can pop "reza" into Google.)--Mike18xx 18:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Given Reza1's enthusiastic response, I suppose someone should point out that the above comment was RupertDoughlas's first Wikipedia edit. Brianyoumans 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Do whatever analysis you want. It will prove your "BAD FAITH" assumption at the end of the day. --Reza1 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It is amusing that users feel that people who post their "first post" are somehow devoid or irrelevant... and anyone who shows just an IP address are "sockpuppets", clutching at straws? (LewisRyder 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
        • I should assume good faith here, but there appears to be some socks floating around. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think we should discount altogether comments from new editors; I think that comments from established editors carry more weight, because they presumably have more experience in judging Wikipedia articles, and because they are less likely to be sockpuppets of other editors in the discussion.--Brianyoumans 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the intense interest in this AFD, including the participation of so many new users, is itself evidence that the article is notable! :-) --Brianyoumans 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: But we are wrting an "Encylopedia". --Reza1 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Brianyoumans et. al. the essence of your “compelling” arguments thus far encompasses; (1) ‘The blog is in the top 50,000 therefore should be advertised on Wikipedia.’ (2). ‘People have discerning views about an encyclopedia entry that simply points to a blog and according to Alexa feeds off the wikipedia link so it should be left as an entry.’ Anything further to add to this overwhelming barrage of points? (LewisRyder 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
      • Comment I'm going to stop responding to this AFD - I think it is probably going to fail, and I have other interests on Wikipedia. I hope that those who are trying to "kill" this article will co-operate with others in making the article better, and cease trying to simply get rid of it. Personally, I haven't read Spencer at all, but if he is in fact an Islamophobe and is disseminating false information, then this is certainly something that should be discussed in the article. --Brianyoumans 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Brianyoumans, if you review the Wiki history on this article, users, such as Mike18xx and others will not 'allow' any discussion in the article about the blog giving out contentious information. Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste. This leads to the question, why is this blog present in Wiki.(LewisRyder 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
          • Lewis? You're not telling the truth--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Some examples; 22:18, 29 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (RV LewisRyder vandalism) ; 17:12, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Lewis? Your "trick" of accusations of vandalism directed toward those who've largely written the topics you're accusing them of vandalizing is becoming tedious.) ; 08:15, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Wikipedia is not a link-repository for ever bitch-moan-whine site that is unsatisfied with the traffic Google is sending it.) etc. Not being able to add any other point of view, or add neutrality leads to abusive comments and a swift revert. So, what is the point of this so called notable encyclopedic entry?? (LewisRyder 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
              • Citing selected past edit commentary instances of my reversions of your vandalism (and calling you for the counter-propaganda tactic of accusing original article writers of vandalism while engaging in it yourself) does not constitute defending your claim of "Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste," since the article is already neutral-view in that it accurately described the ideological stance of its topic. Your argument, now, is essentially that the article should be deleted because other editors won't entertain the changes to it that you desire, and that's bad faith.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Anyone may examine my edits and edits from others that have been reverted and judge for themselves!! My argument is clear, the entry should be deleted because; 1. It is a single point of view. 2. It is not a neutral point of view. 3. It is a mere blog. 4. The entry appears to just be an advertisment link to the blog (check Alexa link-ins). Anyone care to add on to this endless list. (LewisRyder 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment - If we are to add this blog, we'd have to add entries for the thousands (20,000) websites that are ahead of it in the Alexa ratings. This is clearly a case of partisan editors with axes to grind trying to flood Wikipedia with as much anti-Islam propaganda as possible. I'd be curious to know what proportion of Wikipedia's server space is dedicated to entries like this...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) This user also spammed. [3][4][5][6] JungleCat talk/contrib 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it's disallowed. Nice investigative work, by the way.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That pesky "anti-Islam progaganda"...tsk, tsk, tsk...--Mike18xx 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ya, Mike, it's not propaganda if you agree with it.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable. Isarig 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable blog , mentioned throughout the internet . I got 3,570,000 hits on google for "Jihad Watch" [7]--Amenra 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have about 3 million google hits for my name, that does not warrant me creating a Wiki entry, and then linking it to my geocities website, or my Blogspot as it does not deserve a right to be an encyclopedic topic. (LewisRyder 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Entering "Robert Spencer" into Google generated 938,000 returns. Entering "Lewis Ryder" into Google generated only 1,400 returns.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is about Jihadwatch.org entry not the Robert Spencer entry. Entering Jihadwatch.org into google yields a pityfull 300,000 hits which is less than half of what my name yields. (LewisRyder 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
300,000 is "pityfull" and less than half of 1,400? ...OooooK...--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question to the "Keeps" I have been asking many times to the reasons behind the keep. As overviewed above, some authors do not wish to inform me, while others maintain it should be kept as the blog is ranked in the top 50,000 / or because Wiki fuels hits to the alleged discriminate blog. Moreover, the key editors for the blog entry are certain that it should only have a single point of view (see reverts), and that it should only be edited by apparent Jihadwatch website developed (e.g. AnnCr) to maintain a neutral point of view. Surely this is a farce?!!. Kindly provide some real reasons why this blog should merit a wiki entry. (LewisRyder 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Some editors, if they were to suggest in Talk that their opponants were engaging in "farce", would have administrators landing on them like a ton of bricks for being "incivil". How is it that you manage to avoid this, Lewis?--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
answer Individual editors have given their reasons for their votes. --Amenra 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What Reason? No given reason to be in an Encyclopedia. Some authors stated it should be revamped, others that it should remain as it fuels hits to the blog, or that being in the top 50,000 or so it is somehow famous. 50,000 is no way notable... it is like being on the 50,000 rich list, mostly unknowns. (LewisRyder 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
All of the reasons provided by the nominator are erroneous (e.g., JihadWatch is not Robert Spencer's "personal website", etc), and that in and of itself is enough to sustain a keep in this particular instance. There's also the general matter of yet another Islam-relating article coming under attack (first, there's random vandalism, then more organized campaigns, such as this one), with all of the usual suspects drawing up the familiar battle-lines.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, although I never did state it was a "personal website", but thanks for the fabrication. So the reason for a "Keep" from you is because it is not a "personal website"? Are you serious!? And the single point of view, non-neutral point of view, the mere fact it is a unnotable blog, and that Jihadwatch "news editors" etc. have been instructed to make sure of this warrant a good entry into an Encyclopedia? (LewisRyder 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
You are conflating yourself with the 'nominator for deletion (not you, but Reza1), in your earnest desire to accuse me of "fabrication". As for the rest, your contention that Jihad Watch is "unnotable" is simply laughable when the site is routinely mentioned in various media, as can be easily demonstrated by the most cursory of searches.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch, they may speak about Mr. Spencer regarding his 'books' but I have not seen/heard any discuss a blog. Your premise that the blog is notable is still established around a online search engine which is preposterous as varying search engine will rank websites differently, nonetheless the number of hits a string has should be no basis to creating a encycolopedic entry. (LewisRyder 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
You kindly should do your own homework, but I aim to please. ...not that it matters, however, since in this editor's opinion these are bad faith straw-clutchings to defend a bad faith nomination. I think we're just about done here.--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That was a web search, not entries relating to Jihadwatch.org on Fox News I.e. "Google Yahoo! Search MSN SearchAsk Jeeves" as the site says. So, as I stated, kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch. (LewisRyder 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
I'm bored of these "moving goalpost" games.--Mike18xx 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose LewisRyder would like to explain these type edits lately. Doesn't look very productive. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:40, 5 September 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.