Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiwar.com

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --WikiFan0421:51, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Antiwar.com
Many web sites are notable in their own way, lots of google hits from other sites etc.

My arguuments are:
 * Wikipedia.com is not google.com
 * The page is unlikely to go beyond a stub. As the website is (obviously) an antiwar POV. The article if improved will unlikely be NPOV.
 * Antiwar.com does not contribute to human kowlege. The site is about an ideology against wars hence Anti-war.

So this should be an external link whenever referenced. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Cool Cat My Talk 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This VfD is a prime example of Mr. Coolcat's lack of understanding of the NPOV policy. &mdash; Davenbelle 12:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * VfD is hardly a place to discuss personalities. Your objection is directed at me not the delete case of article in question. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It is useful, and it is an inevitable site with great importance in today's world - unsigend 219.111.147.78
 * Keep Seems to be a notable site, Alexa score is good (4,871), as is Google (639,000 hits) Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism. This vandal marked the article "speedy delete" and mass-deleted wikilinks to it. Mirror Vax 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stereotek 13:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Evidence of nominator acting in bad faith. jglc | t | c 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fine article, astonishingly bad behavior by nominator. -Willmcw 16:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Alexa score, Google hits, also Patrick Buchanan is a contributor.  This site gets a fairly large amount of attention from news media and other important sites since it is one of the most well-known libertarian/conservative sites criticizing the war in Iraq (not just wars in general) and the Bush administration's foreign policy.  Soundguy99 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with arguements of original nominator Barneygumble 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alexa and google data. Please note the site itself doesn't need to be NPOV. Only the article on it has to be. - Mgm|(talk) 18:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite notable. — Sesel wa  20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with Soundguy99 and Mgm. Barno 20:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mgm Xoloz 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but without endorsing the attacks on the nominator. JamesMLane 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - especially considering bad-faith actions of nominator. One does not delete every Wikilink to an article (thus creating gobs of work for other Wikipedians) until vote has been certified. Nominator needs to study the VFD process before nominating other articles. --FCYTravis 09:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, very notable website. Article needs expansion and this can easily be done without introducing POV.  Kaibabsquirrel 23:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .