Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahpundit


 * 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:11Z 

Allahpundit

 * — (View AfD)

Can anyone find any reliable sources in this article? It looks to be a blogger cited by other bloggers, "notable" for blogging a defunct blog. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as non-notable/non-verifiable; all the references seem to be blogs, and blogs about blogs, and blogs about blogs about blogs, and so on to infinity. Demiurge 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a previous AfD, in which it was kept on the basis of Google hits (disregarding the Google bias), WP:ILIKEIT, and being widely referenced by other blogs. Demiurge 10:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How much is Allahpundit (alias whatever) known of among Muslims, and among people in general?, and how much has he spread information or influenced public opinion and/or awareness?, before anyone says "notable or not". Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Source or delete. MER-C 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, As stated, there was already an AfD, though it was not kept on the basis of Google hits or WP:ILIKEIT. It was kept because, during the AfD, Allahpundit subbed for Michelle Malkin, eventually becoming the primary blogger on Hot Air, Malkin's "conservative Internet broadcast network."  This is detailed in the article.  The website's Alexa ranking is about tied with Instapundit's .   This is the third time the article has been slapped with an AfD by some enterprising user, and frankly I'm sick of how any Internet opinion source (right or left) is automatically assumed to be nonnotable, and any citations on notable blogs, Alexa rankings, significant involvement in political reporting, etc., are waved away as not being/having "reliable sources," yet "personalities" like Kibo are justified because Wired Magazine wrote a story 13 years ago.  This article is sourced and this subject is notable.  And, as stated in Deletion_policy:
 * If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.
 * which Guy does not provide. Calbaer 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable blogger - such a thing does exist. Human Events often references him, which gives him quite a bit of cache amongst a section of the political community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep b/c he's notable and we've already hashed all of this out once before.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While the person does seem somewhat noteable, the article is poorly sourced and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 13:20, 27 December 2006 (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.