Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House (second 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Information Clearing House (second nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject fails WP:WEB because there are few or no reliable sources covering the subject. I looked over the previous AfD, and the arguments for keeping were not good. For example, arguments were made that the subject "seems notable" or is "clearly notable," but the people who made these arguments never backed up their reasoning with solid evidence. A gut feeling that the subject is notable is not sufficient to pass WP:WEB. It was also mentioned that the contributors are notable, and therefore the website is notable. That is not one of the criterion for passing WP:WEB. I am pre-emptively adding the anons tag based on the vast number of single purpose users that decided to chime in during the last AfD. Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete utter non-notability--Chapline R Vine ( talk ¦  ✉  )  22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be like Newsmax, but less notable. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP -- this is a notable alternative news site, and this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time. There is no reason to delete it.  --Wassermann 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and just because something has slipped under the radar screen too long does not mean it gets a free pass Avi 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In this case, the article having been around for a while is actually an argument for deletion. All that time, and not a single, solitary source even hinting at notability. This one's an easy call. IronDuke  14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sort of very POV, isn't it? I think that then would require that we have an article on a rightwing POV site, etc. etc....Gzuckier 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just a non notable political website. Nick mallory 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers -Doright 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete failure of WP:WEB criteria. There has been more than enough time for adding sourcing.  Tewfik Talk 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The web site is the work of one--anonymous--person, reprinting random articles without caring overly for copyright or proper sourcing. Non notable per WP:WEB. --tickle me 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the deletion of this article is just another example of Wikipedia's censorship and delete-happy ways when it comes to alternative news and websites; we are an encyclopedia...if it exists we should include it, no questions asked.
 * P.S. -- have you all ever bothered to look in Category:News websites? A ton of those are as non-notable as this one, but there is no move to delete any of those.  Nevertheless, hypocrisy and 'selective editing' abounds here on "Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Go On Deletion Rampages And Ravage The Project"....  --Wassermann 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Also, If you don't think those news websites belong on Wikipedia, you should nominate them for deletion.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wassermann, WP is an encyclopedia. Please get familiar with WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk  23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete big time per nom. There is not a single citation in the article other than from the website itself. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:46, 16 May 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.