Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Simpleton


 * 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. Interesting does not mean notable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Political Simpleton

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. Has been speedily deleted for CSD A7 in the past, but has been improved. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable, no third party sources. Doesn't even raise a ripple on Alexa Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as A7 web. A search for "Political Simpleton" on Google returns only 187 unique hits. Many of those are to the website or its press releases, and the only ones I can see from reliable sources are using the term without reference to the website. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable site. Yinta ɳ   12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow We feel this is a perfect compliment to the subject news aggregator. Our site may not have top rankings on Alexa or a lack of unique hits as stated above but Wiki users now have a clear example of what a manual news aggregator is. Someguy1221 has given us some great advice and we have made some substantial changes since. NickW557 has viewed the original and now has seen the newly updated version. From his comments, he seems to agree that this has been an improvement. It would seem that when a person looks on Wikipedia for news aggregator, he or she has an example to go by.

Please take this into consideration and I thank all the Wiki editors for their helpfull comments. 167.75.254.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ALLOW In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.Laurabramble (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — Laurabramble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Plea It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear cut example of what a manual news aggregator is", but, while fairly sure that the article is in English, this one isn't really sure what the heck it's about. This is unusual for him in matters outside the incomprehensible worlds of sport and hiphop. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - non-notable website, unsourced; retention arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT with a side order of blatant conflict of interest. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow Alexa may not be an accurate gauge of site usage as it counts only those who sign up for Alexa. I would suggest that taking such stats seriously does not work. Please advise. Everyone who looks at traffic knows that Alexa cannot be used to assess low traffic sites which this site falls. All set aside, this is not about SERPS, ratings or political views but about legitimacy of submission. This article is more of an extension of the definition of "news aggregator" than a so called "plug" for a website. Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * response - That still doesn't mean that this website is notable, which is the standard under discussion. What is your connection with the website? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going from the current content in the article, if Newportbreakers is indeed Ray Wilkinson as he asserts, that would make him the founder of Political Simpleton. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AllowQuestion to the board before final decision is made: How can an editor request a “speedy delete” when that editor has not thoroughly reviewed an article? The views of “Orange Mike” should hold no water in the fact that he has not reviewed this article in full. Clearly, editor Mendeliv has taken the time to review the article and informed “Orange Mike” what my affiliation is with the article in question. My name, Ray Wilkinson, is visible THREE times in the article. Editors, please do not bash me WP:ILIKEIT for going "against the grain". Ray Wilkinson  Newportbreakers (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * response - Of course I've read the article in full; I just wanted to get you to admit that you are in fact Ray Wilkinson; in which I have obviously succeeded. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * response - Orange Mike, are you trying to imply that I am hiding behind an iron curtain? I have signed every post and comment, “Ray Wilkinson”. I wish you would be more professional and not turn this into a confrontation to avoid the blatant incompetence which you have shown not only to me but to your fellow qualified editors. Thank you, Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (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.