Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Simpleton: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
'''ALLOW''' In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.[[User:Laurabramble|Laurabramble]] ([[User talk:Laurabramble|talk]]) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
'''ALLOW''' In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.[[User:Laurabramble|Laurabramble]] ([[User talk:Laurabramble|talk]]) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Plea''' It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear |
*'''Plea''' It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear example of what a manual news aggregator is", but, while fairly sure that the article is in English, this one isn't really sure what the heck it's about. This is unusual for him in matters outside the incomprehensible worlds of sport and hiphop. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:35, 12 May 2009
- The Political Simpleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. Has been speedily deleted for CSD A7 in the past, but has been improved. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable, no third party sources. Doesn't even raise a ripple on Alexa Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as A7 web. A search for "Political Simpleton" on Google returns only 187 unique hits. Many of those are to the website or its press releases, and the only ones I can see from reliable sources are using the term without reference to the website. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable site. Yintaɳ 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Allow We feel this is a perfect compliment to the subject news aggregator. Our site may not have top rankings on Alexa or a lack of unique hits as stated above but Wiki users now have a clear cut example of what a manual news aggregator is. Someguy1221 has given us some great advice and we have made some substantial changes since. NickW557 has viewed the original and now has seen the newly updated version. From his comments, he seems to agree that this has been an improvement. It would seem that when a person looks on Wikipedia for news aggregator, he or she has an example to go by.
Please take this into consideration and I thank all the Wiki editors for their helpfull comments. 167.75.254.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
ALLOW In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.Laurabramble (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Plea It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear example of what a manual news aggregator is", but, while fairly sure that the article is in English, this one isn't really sure what the heck it's about. This is unusual for him in matters outside the incomprehensible worlds of sport and hiphop. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)