Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brussels Journal

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 per consensus and improvement. Good sources added. PeaceNT 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Brussels Journal

The Brussels Journal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB, does not have multiple sources to establish notability. Contributors are reminded that this is not a headcount, and are asked to motivate their opinions, referring to Wikipedia policy. Mackan 08:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't this the SECOND time deletion is proposed for this article? Haven't all the arguments already been given (where are they?) and wasn't the discussion resolved in favour of the article? Stijn Calle 09:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, this is the first time this page is going through AFD, although it has been nominated for speedy deletion previously. Mackan 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep After Fjordman (and now Jihadwatch) now this. Is Mackan going to nominate every webpage and writer with a different political viewpoint from his own? Nick mallory 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please give a motivation to why this article should be kept, rather then suggesting it has something to do with my supposed political allignment.Mackan 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Brussels Journal is sourced by the Washington Times [1], the National Review [2] and the Wall Street Journal [3] and the New York Times (see the article) yet you claim it's not sourced. Therefore if sourcing isn't the problem I don't know what else it might be. Nick mallory 09:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's Jihad?Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Daily Pundit, Global Politician. All came under fire by the same editors. Interestingly, GP (of which I am the senior editor) had profile for a long time without a problem when we ran predominatly liberal articles. Recently, several conservative, anti-Islamist writers joined and bingo, we came under fire. I'm sure it's a coincidence...

  • The Opinion Journal mention seems trivial. The Washington Times editorial was not in the article at the time of nomination, but provide more articles like that and you might have a case. See WP:WEB.Mackan 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  How many do you want? 5? 10? How many will satisfy you? Nick mallory 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  See WP:WEB.Mackan 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  'Multiple non trivial sources'? There's several in the article. So, by your own argument, I assume you'll withdraw the nomination then? Nick mallory 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  The Opinion Journal piece is trivial, see WP:WEB: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site"Mackan 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  What about the Washington Times and the National Review and William Safire in the New York Times? Are they OK Lewis, sorry, Mackan, or not? Nick mallory 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Having looked at the talk page, it seems that this blog had some kind of altercation with the Belgian government that has been documented in news sources. The focus of the coverage, however, is on the incident and not the blog itself. I am specifically not suggesting that there should be no coverage at all of this issue, but I think it would be better handled at a "The Brussels Journal controversy" article, rather than an article about the blog itself. This blog's article is being used in argument as a reason for its contributors (c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjordman) to have articles themselves. As I see it, that might be the case if the blog were non-trivially documented in reliable sources, but it's not of itself. As to the actual substance of the blog, there's no coverage, critical commentary or anything else in reliable sources that would indicate notability for this web content. Deranged bulbasaur 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I think that the main problem with the article is that there aren't multiple reliable sources, there is only one, meaning that this article fails WP:WEB criteria. If several of those were provided, I wouldn't have any problem with the article.Mackan 09:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the article again. There's an editorial from the Washington Times, a major American broadsheet newspaper from August 17th 2006 about the Brussels Journal plus the National Review piece plus William Safire in the New York Times. Nick mallory 09:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • It seems that you are incorrect if you believe it's only mentioned in one source (see above). However, my concern is not the number of mentions, but the fact that they're not about the blog itself. Deranged bulbasaur 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is the Washington Times editorial not about the blog? The Editorial, from August 2006, starts 'Free speech is under attack in Belgium. Over the last five months, the Brussels Journal, a conservative blog, and its editor, journalist Paul Belien, have been falsely accused of posting racist comments, prompting condemnation from politicians and calls for prosecution' Nick mallory 09:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's about trumped up charges by the Belgian government. Not everyone who is the subject of trumped up charges is notable. It's the incident that deserves coverage, not the blog as I noted in my vote. Deranged bulbasaur 09:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See for instance the fact that we have an article Miranda v. Arizona but no Ernest Arthur Miranda. Deranged bulbasaur 09:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it exists under a different spelling, but there are dozens of less famous cases that illustrate my point. Deranged bulbasaur 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that an editorial in the Washington Times which ends 'From what we've seen of the English version of the Brussels Journal, the accusations of racism are utterly baseless. Mr. Belien is guilty only of vigorously expressing his opinion, and in many cases it would benefit Belgium -- and Europe as a whole -- to heed the advice from the Brussels Journal rather than to criminalize it.' establishes the notability of the Brussels Journal itself. Nick mallory 09:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A journalist expressing an opinion about a controversy does not confer notability on one participant in that controversy that's independent of the issue at hand. Deranged bulbasaur 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Deranged bulbasaur, you are mistaken about Ernesto Miranda. He has his own page, and it is not going anywhere. I am not entirely certain that the article should stand in line with questions about clutter, but it seems that it has had some recent notability. It's also worth mentioning that it's on the third page of Ghits in a search for just "Brussels." --Edwin Herdman 10:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Another source. William Safire in his column entitled 'No ... Left Behind' in the New York Times of February 26, 2006. ""We are all Danes now," The Brussels Journal declared this year, asserting freedom-of-expression solidarity with the Danish newspaper that published a group of cartoons causing Muslim groups to launch a furious taking-offense offensive." Nick mallory 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please present new sources in the actual article, not here. And FYI, that seems to me like yet another trivial mention. Do read WP:WEB, please.Mackan 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They are in the article Lewis, they're quoted extensively. I'm merely pointing out that sources do exist. You began this AfD by saying there were no sources, now you keep dismissing them as 'trivial' without explaining why that's so. It seems to me that no matter what sources are produced, from whatever source, will be good enough to satisfy your ever expanding criteria for inclusion. Nick mallory 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to remain WP:CIVIL. My user name is Mackan, not Lewis. Also, please debate honestly. There WERE no sources when I nominated this article. I agree that the Washington Post mention is not trivial, but the other new mentions are definately so. "Without explaining why that's so", see WP:WEB, it defines what's trivial and what's not. Mackan 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly civil, and apologise for getting your name wrong. I'm glad we agree that the editorial in the Washington Times about the Brussels Journal meets your standards. It is of course up to the closing admin, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community, whether mentions in the New York Times and a long piece in the National Review specifically about the Brussels Journal count towards the notability of this item. I'm sure your long record of nominating conservative websites for deletion isn't politically motivated and that a similar list of left wing websites will be nominated by you shortly. I note that the Brussels Journal article has been tagged, by you, as 'containing too many quotations'. All these quotations are from sources which establish its notability. You're now complaining that there are too many sources on the article but that it still doesn't have enough sources here Nick mallory 11:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, PLEASE remain civil and comment on the contributions, not the editor. This is yet another attempt from your side to allege that I nominated this article out of political motives, which is entirely false ("long record of nominating conservative websites for deletion"? Exactly how long do you suggest that record is, a day or two?? I've been editing WP for more than 2 years). I've never said I find The National Review piece trivial, and I don't. Also, the "quotefarm"-tag isn't about the amount of sources, but about the amount, and lenght, of direct quotes. Mackan 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's back up. The issue, in my view, is whether the blog continues to be notable, and not just for fifteen minutes of fame regarding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Perhaps that's a wrong interpretation of notability, but it's the only way I could imagine that this article should not stand given the impact of this blog. --Edwin Herdman 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the largest issue is whether the blog is notable at all. I'm not sure what "15 minutes of fame" you are referring to? Mackan 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources given which you and Nick mallory have been going back and forth about, including the Post article you called "non-trivial." Naturally, you're free to argue that even the Post reference is peripheral and does not establish notability, which theoretically is a sound premise, but we need to clear up whether a mention being "non-trivial" entails notability, or not. I would imagine it does or else the word is in danger of becoming meaningless. Finally - I imagine you don't mean it, but your wording of remarks like these create a negative impression, which should naturally be avoided to keep things friendly and constructive. --Edwin Herdman 12:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough points Edwin. Nick mallory 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those were actually meant for Mackan, but hey. I also left you a note on your talk page, by the way. Anyhow, the problem (see the next Keep comment) is that there seems to be quite a bit of agreement that the blog is notable given that it prompted a clash between Belgian authorities and various international free-speech advocates, but there remain perhaps not enough sources to confirm that. I still am leaning towards keeping the article. --Edwin Herdman 12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edwin, forgive me if I'm brusque, but as you correctly guessed, I have no intention of being rude or of creating a "negative impression". I'm only referring to WP:WEB, which I hope everybody voting has familiarized themselves with: we need multiple, non-trivial reliable secondary sources to establish neutrality. At this date, we have two editorials, which is better than nothing, but I'd like to see an actual article on the Belgian authorities' alleged "attempted closure" of the site. Mackan 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is about a news medium located in Brussels, Belgium, that gives objective information about Belgium and the EU. It is one of the very few news media that is not directly or indirectly controlled by Belgian politics. The fact that the Belgian government tried to close down the site, and that this brought a public outcry from America, is prove of the relevance of this article. Stijn Calle 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per substantial coverage in the Washington Times, New York Times, and other reliable sources cited in tha article and here. Edison 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - blog is followed and reported on by Belgian newspapers (De Morgen, De Stanaard). User who put this up for deletion is not a contributing member of wikipedia and is currently targeting very specific entries. This is not a reason to keep, this is a reason to stop running after frivolous use of wikipedia policies in order to run a specific agenda. Misheu 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously unfounded personal attacks, please remain WP:CIVIL. If the blog is "followed and reported no by Belgian newspapers", just include reliable sources stating so. Calling names isn't helpful in the least. Mackan 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The appearance remains that a large number of articles about evidently notable non-traditional news sources that are also obviously not advertising have been put up for deletion recently. I'm sure there's an innocent reason for it, but I think it might be wise to cease nominating these articles for the time being so we can focus on the distinguishing characteristics of each, and not any apparent patterns - and, of course, so that people who are defending them have a chance to breathe. Nick mallory in particular has had his hands full attempting to find sources for all these pages and it's a bit of a disservice for him to have to use the AfD to improve articles. --Edwin Herdman 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edwin, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm afraid to say I find that comment quite unhelpful, and entirely unrelated to this AFD. Please keep the discussion on whether The Brussels Journal is notable or not. Mackan 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Edwin's comment is extremely to the point. This is the second time you're trying to delete this article in so many weeks, and that is related entirely to this AfD. So is the fact that you are AfDing other related entires about related blogs and bloggers. Not every newspaper puts up every article it writes online. If i could bring sources for what I'm saying, it would be in the article, not in a discussion page. Misheu 05:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the readily apparent reasons for your frictions with other editors, Mackan, and it's written from an impartial perspective; Don't shoot the messenger! If ever Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith was warranted, it is now. Secondly, repeated complaints about "unrelated comments" amount to "shut up, I don't like people questioning my motives" when somebody points out your past history with the issue - and frankly I did not know the bit of information Misheu just supplied - only delay the time at which we will have to determine why these articles are being nominated. We can do it in your talk page, here, or in an RFC, and I know that a number of people have been asking these same questions and meeting being stonewalled with "unrelated to this AfD." If you would simply explain why all these non-traditional news articles are being nominated, and at that for the second time in two weeks, I'm sure these difficulties would soon disappear. There's nothing wrong with having tracked a number of related articles, and it seems to me an efficient way to do things. Back to the topic at hand, we still have the issue of whether an article can have a "non-trivial" (synonym for trivial: notable) reference and be non-notable. If there was only one source, then it would fail notability, but there are multiple sources and we've apparently established beyond a shadow of a doubt that one of these sources is notable. --Edwin Herdman 10:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep though it would be better to have more numbers and facts than quotes in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The long record- pages nominated for deletion by Mackan in the past couple of weeks: Fjordman (speedy delete May 7, Afd May 22), Brussels Journal (speedy delete May 7, AfD May 23), Captains Quarters (blog) (speedy delete May 7), FrontPage Magazine (speedy delete May 8), William Thomas Quick (AfD May 23), Global Politician (speedy delete May 7 (passed), AfD May 23), Jihad Watch (AfD May 23). Then we have User:Deranged bulbasaur who nominated Instapundit (AfD May 23) and whose user page was cleared by Mckan May 23. I Misheu 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD has really gone off the tracks. My sympathies to whomever has to close it. Generally, speculating on the motives of the nominator is straight out. I nominated a number of small non-notable political parties for deletion last week. Since I found them using wikilinks, etc., they were all of the same basic persuasion, far-left. Does that make me some kind of problem? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As blogs go, it's relatively well documented. This is among the better ones, & there are many that need deleting mush more . The WashingtonTimes editorial is particular is a significant item dealing specifically with this blog. It meets the rules. DGG 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - widely quoted and referenced. That it is web only cannot be consideration for deletion Salon magazine is web only. it has an entry. since the Belgian government IS trying to shut it down/harrass it it's self-evident it's newworthy. perhaps the mackan character is part of a similar effort? In any event his efforts given their specific focus, don't seem like good faith Mywikieditor2007 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. For what it's worth, I've seen notes on a number of sites for traditional media noting that Salon's editors contributed. Maybe I've even seen that in a print reference; however, the specifics fail me. I tend to agree that being internet-only is fine, since traditional media often doesn't want to play along (or at least that accusation is made, sometimes fairly, sometimes not). --Edwin Herdman 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the commenters above, subject has received repeated non-trivial third party coverage. Yamaguchi先生 07:13, 28 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.