Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americablog (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   no consensus. Unfortunately, little participation, but if the past is any indication, it would have been kept. At this time, however, I don't see a clear consensus. Dennis 2&cent; 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Americablog
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In the previous AfD, only one actual argument for inclusion was made: "Two of the references are non-trivial and establish barely sufficient notability for an article". The rest of the arguments where using subjective standards of notability that have no bearing on article inclusion. The criteria is WP:WEBCRIT. It says that the standard is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

The most substantial coverage appears to be: which is only a paragraph long which describes it in a way as to show that it is not well known "You may not be too familiar with this outspoken political blog ...". I don't see the non-trivial coverage in published works. Some of the commentators in the last discussion may have confused the notability of John Aravosis with that of the blog, but notability is not inherited. Second Quantization (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, seeing a good deal of coverage at, specifically https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Americablog%22&gws_rd=ssl and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Americablog%22 and more specifically discussion in books Why God Doesn't Hate You by Tia Michelle Pesando, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press by Eric Boehlert, Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture by David A. Gerstner, in total about one-thousand (1,000) results in Google Books. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirt, we both know your just showing WP:GOOGLEHITS and that's no argument. I just looked at the Routledge coverage and it's minimal. Do you actually think our criteria is for coverage that minimal. The only information it gives is that John Aravosis blogs for them. That's it. That's not significant coverage. Even "Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press" says next to nothing about the blog, and it's an entire book dedicated to blogs! Pick your best source, because if those two are the best, then that's nothing close to the requirements. Second Quantization (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What I'm not seeing here is any great, credible or well-sourced reason why the blog needs a separate article from the one on the primary writer of the blog. In fact, this article as written actually contains very little content that isn't simply a repetition of stuff that's already in John Aravosis — and that little bit could easily be merged into Aravosis' article too. And I'm saying all this as somebody who does read Americablog fairly regularly — it's a topic that we rightly should maintain some content about, but by contemporary wikistandards the ideal presentation of that content is not to have one article about Aravosis himself and a separate article about the blog as a distinct topic which is mostly just repeating content from Aravosis' BLP. (For a comparable example, we have an article about Andy Towle, but Towleroad is not a separate standalone article — it's just a redirect to Towle's BLP.) Redirect to John Aravosis. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect as redundant, a content fork or double articles for one topic. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a search on HighBeam and it returned 154 hits. Most are not in-depth but many cite the blog as a source, thereby meeting WP:Notability (media): #4 and #5. I am One of Many (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a newspaper, magazine or journals, so that criteria is irrelevant. The correct criteria is WP:INTERNET which explicitly includes online blogs in its remit. If you think 154 cites (or more correctly in your case, search results) counts for notability, then hundreds of thousands of ordinary academic articles are notable, Second Quantization (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:INTERNET applies, but they don't describe themselves as a blog: "AMERICAblog is a journal of news and opinion about US politics, both domestic and foreign, from a progressive point of view". Moreover, most of the reliable source hits on "AMERICAblog" cite them as a liberal news source or journal. Their status is a bit ambiguous, but whether best covered under WP:INTERNET or WP:Notability (media): #4 and #5, the website appears notable. I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:02, 23 October 2014 (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.