Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LewRockwell.com: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→LewRockwell.com: delete |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
::::OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge''' i see no indications for notability in the article, and while there may be alot of Google hits, i found that most of these where either links or blogs (and a large combo of those). Where is the independent coverage of it? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''' i see no indications for notability in the article, and while there may be alot of Google hits, i found that most of these where either links or blogs (and a large combo of those). Where is the independent coverage of it? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge'''. Rockwell and his web site are effectively the same topic. I can't think of anything you could say about LewRockwell.com that would not be relevant to the article about Lew Rockwell. [[User:NCdave|NCdave]] ([[User talk:NCdave|talk]]) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:22, 25 March 2008
- LewRockwell.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A largely self-sourced article on Lew Rockwell's website. Rockwell is notable, is his site independently notable? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This article notes that the page "disclaims" it is no longer associated with Lew Rockwell - it is not his site, (may make it less notable). BananaFiend (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, thanks, Guy, but there is plenty of independent notability. I added two reliable sources just now. To a degree a bit of self-pub would be allowed to permit a brief paragraph on LRC's positions, and that paragraph is currently too long, but aside from that the contributors list alone is a showcase of notables. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Lew Rockwell. Even if the site doesn't necessarily represent his positions all the time he's still inextricably tied in to the site and as I understand it he does a lot of editorial and writing work for it. The article needs some work but there is good stuff in there--I would hate to see someones efforts disappear. Iamblessed (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, website is independently notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say so? It might be, but it's better to provide evidence instead of simply asserting it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- This Google text string search for "lewrockwell.com" yields about a quarter of a million hits. Thousands of these represent indications of notability. It is likely the most noted and widely read libertarian website on earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- This Google text string search for "lewrockwell.com" yields about a quarter of a million hits. Thousands of these represent indications of notability. It is likely the most noted and widely read libertarian website on earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge i see no indications for notability in the article, and while there may be alot of Google hits, i found that most of these where either links or blogs (and a large combo of those). Where is the independent coverage of it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. Rockwell and his web site are effectively the same topic. I can't think of anything you could say about LewRockwell.com that would not be relevant to the article about Lew Rockwell. NCdave (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)