Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Voice (third 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 DELETE. I am persuaded by the fact that no sources have been found over the course of much time and two (now three) AfDs. Ravenswing's final comment is particularly telling. -Splash - tk 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dissident Voice (3rd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website. Pablothegreat85 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The size of the article makes it a bit more than a stub. I'd consider changing my vote if the article can be expanded in a meaningful way or improved. Anynobody 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the reasoning of previous nominations: namely the notability of contributors to the website, high alexia rank and a whopping 2.1 million gHits as of last check (previous AfD) If they were that notable then, then even if they aren't AS notable today, they clearly have a claim to strong notability.  Issues of article size and quality are best solved via the talk page and research, not (multiple) AfD nominations. Wintermut3 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I abstain from vote this matter.Wen Hsing 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (IMHO this is a borderline speedy but I won't vote as such due to the existance of previous AfDs) It's has plenty of time to find reliable sources, but it's still completely 100% unreferenced. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether Alexa rankings and Ghits alone satisfy WP:N I will not debate, but as pointed out above peristently fails to be referenced and does not satisfy WP:ATT.  If it really is that notable then sourcing should be easy - that it's gone so long without tells me there is no reason to keep.  A r k y a n  • (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's been eight months since the most recent nomination.  In all that time, it hasn't progressed beyond the unsourced stub that existed back then, and has had all of about three meaningful edits.  Arkyan's reasoning is sound, and frankly, I'm unimpressed with the argument in previous AfDs that dissident publications have a hard time finding sources which satisfy WP:ATT.  Notable ones manage just fine.  Ravenswing 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the notability of the contributors. What makes magazine important is what it contains. DGG 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notariety of contributors is not relevant to our notability policy.  Dissident Voice is not reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. by reputable sources, and as such, doesn't satisfy WP:Notability.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements. - Denny  ( talk ) 02:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per user User:DGGRaveenS 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Has anyone tried researching this subject on Lexis Nexis or any other sort of news aggregator? The list of contributors does more than just suggest notability, so I'm a bit surprised that the referencing of this article hasn't improved given the two prior noms.  RFerreira 08:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are only 13 hits on Google News, and not a single one is even about an article attached to Dissident Voice; they all reference "Soandso is co-editor of Dissident Voice" or "Soandso's works have appeared in Mag A, Mag B, Dissident Voice, Website C ..." We could just apply Occam's Razor and draw the conclusion that the reason why the article hasn't established notability is that the website just doesn't happen to be particularly noteworthy.    Ravenswing  13:38, 9 April 2007 (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.