Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia (2nd 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Dubious notability. Very limited coverage in third-party sources; almost every citation is trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are not trivial, and much as I wish the site itself didn't exist, that's not the same thing as wanting to delete the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold my nose and keep. Much as I wish we could delete garbage like this from the world in general, it's the sole or main focus of many of the sources used in the article, and they are as far as I can tell reliable. We don't only catalog the nice parts of the world. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Week keep Sources are not trivial. Problems can be with systematic POV because many sources are obviously hostile comments by ideological enemies and article does not include sympathetic sources. Some sources like SPLC are inherently unreliable as sources for facts but can be used as sources for opinions of ideological enemies. --Dezidor (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is nothing in WP:RS requiring that sources be neutral or unbiased. Beyond that, the ultimate measure here is whether the sources attest to the subject's notability. I would say a subject important enough to warrant articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center or provoke speeches on the floor of the Bundestag meet that bar.   Ravenswing  14:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote.  Ravenswing  16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient media coverage in several countries to meet notability criterion. walk victor falktalk 16:29, 20 January 2011 (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.