Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (3rd 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ace of Spades HQ
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Notability. Only mentioned in passing in two reliable sources, no substantial coverage as required. The rest of the article consists of material from the site itself and blogs. Borock (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Site won CPAC Blogger Of The Year award, 2009, therefore notable per WP:WEB.ReverendWayne (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This blog seems to be an often-referenced and relatively influential conservative blog, as evidenced by a number of refences in widely-read national newspapers, which I found in a brief google news archive search: . This far exceeds the nominator's argument of non-notability based on there being only two good sources.  Also, the blog has been discussed in peer-reviewed journals:, .  Here is a book verifying that the site has 13000+ visits per day: .  A large amount of content, stances, and predictions of the blog are verifiable in reliable sources.  Personally, I think the inclusion of this topic and ones like it are interesting and enrich wikipedia.  Cazort (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those seems to be a non trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing trivial mentions with small mentions. Whether or not something is trivial has less to do with the length of coverage and more to do with whether it is incidental to the main content of the article, or whether it is tied into the main content of the article.   WP:N's example of trivial coverage shows an example cleary irrelevant to the main article: it's little more than a random fact.  But when articles are written about the blogosphere, any quotes from or references to bloggers in those articles, however small, are not trivial as they are the main content of the articles.  Similarly, when an article is written specifically about a particular issue, and then bloggers are quoted in the context of how they respond to that issue, that isn't trivial coverage either, even if it small.  Maybe the coverage still isn't significant enough in your eyes, and I can respect that, but it's hardly trivial.   Cazort (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the article needs work but does not meet criteria for deletion and is notable RP459 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tepid Keep Not a great article by any means, but it's better than it was when it was kept at its last CfD. PhGustaf (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (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.