Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inverted World
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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Inverted World
Non-notable white nationalist website. A Google test yields very few results. Flash94 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am Ian Jobling, owner of The Inverted World. Flash94 gives as justification for the deletion of this article that there are few Google results for the search '"inverted world" jobling'. I just tried the search and got three pages that consisted uniquely of Inverted World pages or comments on them at other sites. There were more references to Inverted World after that, although they got mixed in with non-Inverted World results. Also, I only recently revealed my identity; previously, I wrote under the pseudonym "The Realist". A Google search on '"inverted world" realist' yields another three pages mostly of references to IW pages or comments on them. I would have thought any site that could garner that much presence on Google was notable. What is the criterion for notable here? By the way, I didn't write the entry on IW myself. It does need copy-editing. I will do that myself later today.
- One possibility would be to combine this page with the entry on Ian Jobling.
- Jobling3 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Jobling3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- STRONG KEEP. The web site is very well known in the white nationalist circles. It has been commented on or cited in the American Renaissance and just about every other white nationalist publication, online and offline. Some were critical of it (because IW is not antisemitic, unlike many White Nationalist sites), but there are very paleo-conservatives who have read the site's writing. And as mentioned, all the white nationalist sites linked to the IW at one point or another. The site is not notable the way the Time Magazine is, but within the paleo-conservative niche, it certainly is. I vote "Strong Keep" with a re-write to include that this is an online publication and other corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.183.44 (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — 24.185.183.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: sorry, I'm confused – either this should be at WP:RFD, or it's the redirected article that's been nominated —αlεx•mullεr 11:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - reverted the article to a previous version... —αlεx•mullεr 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - lacks reliable sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete If it is notable among White Nationalist sites, where are the references? DGG (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources, therefore is not notable. Rigby27 Talk 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable website by non-notable extremist. (I realize COI is not a reason for deletion, but really... ) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 28 February 2008 (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.
