Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jawa Report (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 delete. --Core desat 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jawa Report
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fixing malformed nom. Page was deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Original nom's comments were: "one of 100s of political blogs & not even high ranking trafic out of 1000s, wikipedia is not a web directory and article is of a low quality Standabove 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)". This comment was previously attached to the page's original AfD from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of coverage of this blog.  SALT is deemed necessary to prevent recreation Corpx 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of significant in-depth sources - one passing mention in an article is all we have, and there seems to be very little except blogs. Maybe as a consequence, most of the content isn't actually about the Jawa Report. --Huon 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage. --Eyrian 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news attempted to censor this blog from its google news service but was quickly forced to recant. This subject was covered in depth by the American Thinker in this article .  Nick mallory 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Site was subject of 2005 controversy related to Google censorship and is a notable news blog site .--CltFn 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Google censorship attempt is indeed covered in depth. Unfortunately, the Jawa Report isn't. For example, all we learn from the source given by Nick mallory except about Google bias is that [t]he Jawa Report focuses a great deal of attention on terrorist issues and how they relate to radical Islam. That's a passing mention only, and confirms only the article's first sentence. That's not as bad as it seems, though, because major parts of the article speak of Jawas and the owner's pen name, but not of the Report itself. The Jawa Report is already used as an example in Google Censorship, but the blog itself is not notable per WP:WEB. Even worse, practically everything except that one sentence and the Google incident is either unsourced or (in case of the Alexa ranking) even wrong. --Huon 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Insignificant; rare coverage by blog-watch columns, likes Slate magazine's.--Kitrus 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable blog. Italiavivi 20:03, 29 August 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.