Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Defense Review


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

World Defense Review

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

Doesn't appear to meet requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, I can't find any reliable, third party references about this site. It's contributors are notable, and WDR's articles get reprinted, but there is no independent coverage. Recommend Delete, though I will withdraw if someone else has better luck finding sources. // Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google seems to indicate that this is a highly quoted resource in the defense community, regardless of the notability of the owners. § FreeRangeFrog 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not a "highly quoted resource in the defense community", it's a fringy website that shows up on a number of non-notable blogs and websites. Besides, being widely quoted is one of the criteria at WP:WEB - we're looking for independent coverage, of which there seems to be none.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 12:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider IDC Herzliya/ICT or any organization that counts Uriel Reichman or Shabtai Shavit as directors to be "fringe". J. Peter Pham is also notable enough to give defense-related testimony before Congress. YMMV of course :) § FreeRangeFrog 17:00, 6 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 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as it seems to be non-notable, at least outside of a very specific niche. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable publication, quoted in other notable publications. Being a "niche" publication is not grounds for deletion, nor is being about fighting wars - as objectionable as that is. Publication has significant contributors (some well known names in the field of war mongering thought), and is notable as a forum for the notable people who write for it (seriously). Calling the publications / web sites that it is mentioned in "fringe" is POV and weaselly. Besides, something with a font that tiny has to have gravitas. The article does need work, and if it is kept, I'll spend some time on it. I'd personally like to see all those guys crawl back under their rocks, but none the less... Proxy User (talk) 17:50, 7 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.