Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vodkapundit


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vodkapundit

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

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A7 ; no source for "Green’s blog is one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet, receiving thousands of visits daily from readers around the world", and the page has not been updated in some time. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Should circular references from Google vis a vis Digg and StumbledUpon really count for a keep, though? 71.63.26.57 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough Google News and Google News archives mentions to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It took me all of thirty seconds to find mentions in the Washington Post and Salon.com that support any assertion of notability. Here's the BBC and the Philly Inquirer, for good measure. This nomination seems a little pointy, to me.  one brave  monkey  09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A one-line mention in a print-article is enough to meet the notability guidelines? I don't think so. Topics are usually considered appropriate for an article if they have been written about in a non-trivial manner by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. This article fails the notability guidelines because, while information can be found on the subject's existence in the aforementioned articles, the subject's notability hasn't been proven. Not every blog can be written about on Wikipedia. The sources have to be about the blog itself, they can't merely mention it or refer to it. There has to be in-depth discussion of the blog, which does not occur in any of the aforementioned articles. Hats off to Themfromspace (talk) for pointing this out to me. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources (again, found in a very quick Google News search) are major news organisations quoting the blog as a source. The quotes are not single-line and refer to the blog as a major opinion source itself, thus asserting its notability. Have you searched for similar sources, before nominating this for deletion?  one brave  monkey  06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I never got a response to my question above so I've JFDI and added a few sources and reworded things. I'm currently having difficulty accessing the site in question (which is limiting my efforts), but this article really only needs someone to spend some time cleaning it up, rather than deletion.  one brave  monkey  14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete being quoted is NOT "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". That would consist of newspapers actually publishing facts about Vodkapundit, not just some lines quoted from it. A major point of the notability guidelines is to ensure that an article about X can actually be written based on third-party sources (not based on what X says about himself on his own website with a side mention that "The Big City Times says X is important"). If a mention of X in a third-party source does not enable you to do this, then it doesn't contribute to meeting WP:N. cab (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think Ks64q2 makes an excellent point.  There might be a case for a WP article about the blogger(s) themselves (Will Collier was directly quoted no less than 4 times in that BBC article and managed to score the photo quote box over other much more mainstream figures), but the blog itself doesn't seem to meet WP:N.  Why not start again there?  Half the current article is about Green's personal health anyway and there's already a redirect in place for Stephen Green (blogger).  Also found this reference to Green appearing in a radio show which might help establish notability under WP:BIO.  chuuumus  ( talk ) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per onebravemonkey. This is a well-known blog, notability is not an issue here. Much as I dislike these types of well-known blogs. § FreeRangeFrog 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Stephen Green (blogger). I reiterate my point above.  In its current form this article really isn't about Vodkapundit the blog at all -- it's about Stephen Green.  Per the article, the following is about Vodkapundit as a blog:
 * Vodkapundit and the Weblog of Tomorrow, is a weblog created by Stephen Green and written by Green and Will Collier. ... Vodkapundit has become one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet
 * And the following is about Green himself:
 * Green, self described as a "gourmand, sybarite, and raconteur," operates a blog focuses on issues of politics, food, adult beverages, Green's own hobbies and personal pursuits, and general culture. Green, a libertarian, credits Ayn Rand as one of his inspirations.  Green and Vodkapundit are part of Pajamas Media.  Green lives in Colorado Springs with his wife, Melissa, and their son.  On December 16, 2006 Mr. Green reported that he had been diagnosed with hyperthyroid condition that caused him to severely lose weight and to suspend the frequency of his blogging. That condition is being treated.  One of Green's signature blogging styles is to live blog a political event while consuming a large number of vodka martinis. ...Green has been described by James Lileks as having "mordant wit and stylish cynicism."
 * There's simply not enough about the blog itself to meet WP:N, but I think there's a case to be made for WP:BIO if moved and reorganized. chuuumus  ( talk ) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Besides circular Google references and one or two very minor quotes, it is a forgettable blog by a barely notable author. Proxy User (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources don't adequately prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources actually discussing the website on hand instead of namedropping it. This doesn't meet our notability criteria. Themfromspace (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of sources indicates lack of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:38, 10 March 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.