Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (2nd nomination)

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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Spades HQ

Deletion requested by User:CharlesGiacometti, on the grounds that the subject is non-notable. See Talk:Ace of Spades HQ for his reasoning. I'm nominating it on his behalf, as he tried to do so himself but didn't follow the nomination process correctly. Terraxos 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep like so many political blogs it's mainly noticable in that context and the article is not very NPOV, but a case may be made that it's noticable enough in the "real world". --Martin Wisse 11:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is notable, IMO -- Cabalamat 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a marginal, highly illogical blogger who writes terribly. The article is wildly positive, which tells me no one reads the entry except for true believers. If he were notable enough, people would create balance in the article they way they routinely do with better known political bloggers. CharlesGiacometti.
- The article reads OK to me. If you see a WP:NPOV, deletion isn't the answer, fix it. --SmokeyJoe 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm definitely not a true believer in this blog (or even a reader), and I do understand the concerns expressed by Charles with respect to the quality of this article, however I do think it probably passes the notability guidelines. It has been cited in several mainstream news sources, and is a fairly high-traffic political blog. I'm not entirely clear about blog notability guidelines and would hope that those who have more familiarity with those could weigh in here. Incidentally, this article used to be filled with patent nonsense and nothing else-I largely cleaned it out but it still has some stupid crap in it and needs some serious work. When I first came across it I threatened to put it up for AfD and some decent sources were then added, so maybe this AfD will be the kick needed to improve this thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think his numbers are what he claims. If you take a look at the last nomination for this article, you'll see that it was claimed he had "millions of pageviews" when in reality that was for the entire mu.nu domain, which houses a number of (largely also marginal and illogical) blogs in addition to this one. I don't know what Wikipedia's exact notability requirements for bloggers are these days, but I can't imagine this blog being high up on anyone's list of quality political blogs. Simba B 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the subject satisfies notability requirements, as Bigtimepeace notes; the entry would be vastly improved by keeping just the first three grafs and perhaps a tightened-up summary (i.e. a couple of sentences) of the rest, but that's for the talk page, not an AfD. Holgate 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bigtimepeace.
Ace's blog now has 15 million visits, according to SiteMeter[1] — and that's just ace.mu.nu, not the whole mu.nu domain. Moreover, he's currently ranked #70 in The Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem.[2] I say these numbers make the blog Notable, even though that's not how Wikipedia's Notability guidelines work (yet).
I also agree that this article Needs Some Work™. Cheers, CWC 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. sufficient coverage in secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Needs to be more NPOV, but still worth keeping ff m 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.