Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (Third 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics1.com

For prior discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (Previous Nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (2nd nomination)

Politics1.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This site is undeniably popular, although not in the same league as Daily Kos, ranking just outside 70,000 on Alexa while Kos is inside the 2,000 mark, but the problem I have here is that I cannot find good sources to remedy the multiple "unsourced" tags on the article. It scores well on a Google search, but this is partly the result of rampant spamming (including to Wikipedia, where it has been linked as a source for numerous rumours in biographies - last I heard blogs were not a good source for such, but that's an aside). However, it scores only four passing mentions in Google News and seven on Factiva, which also appear to be passing mentions ("according to politics1, blah", where blah is a single sentence). All the content appears to be referenced to the primary source, and there is a lot of editorialising going on. I';m certainly not averse to keeping it if we can demonstrate that credible third party sources exist for the content - i.e. substantial critical review of the site, rather than just proof of existence - and we can clean it up to be properly neutral. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, Google Link Search shows that pretty much every site linking to Politics1 does it simply as a footnote listing affiliations or listing random blogs on similar subjects. cacophony 10:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• In the first AFD discussion, Kappa pointed to where several potential sources are cited on the Politics1 web site itself. I've added citations for the originals, of a few of them, to the article for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the work, Uncle G, it'll be interesting to see if these are judged by t'committee to be non-trivial coverage (one at least seems to rise above the level of directory-of-politics-sites). Guy (Help!) 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It may be popular, but sources are still needed or they may be deleted especially if challenged. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Undeniably non-notable. I have several <70k Alexa sites and none of them have pages on WP. --lesalle 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. (nn blog) Maybe WP:WEB ought to be adjusted for blogs to be included to have alexa <= 5000 or something. --timecop 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if no credible source can be found (my own webpage has a better Alexa ranking). Sam Hocevar 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sauce. Where is the sauce? MrMacMan 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• 6 potential sources were cited in the article at the point that I commented above. I suggest that the preceding three editors read the article again, carefully this time. Uncle G 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have looked over the sources listed... The 'Politics1.com Is One of...' is large large large list of 'the best sites' and no real commentary on downsides... for example The previous 'site to checkout' isn't posted on wiki The link to ' TV and Web are poles apart' is nothing more then a sites to possibly checkout article. I checked using my colleges database. As I don't believe I'm allowed to lift text ill say that they talk about, 'www.fearthis.com', 'theonion.com', 'jeb02.com' and several local sites for Illinois political office. Its a big list of sites and doesn't really go into deeper then "Thorough and smoothly laid out"... and The other Tribune article is more of the same... infact the title says it directly -- sites you might want to checkout. Meh, not enough actual discussion about the sites dealings, views, critics and necesary indepth coverge. Weak delete? Well beforehand, yes. Now that i saw that the articles people could find about were only typical 'check this site out!' I back my delete fully. MrMacMan 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You've omitted the Seattle Times and Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, both of which go into detail on this web site and its founder. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a popular website and I value the sources added that confirm it's importance and heavy usage during political seasons. --Oakshade 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn, unsourced. -Ich (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again: There are 6 potential sources cited in the article. Please read the article being discussed. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cannot see why there are claims that this article is not sourced, somebody needs a case for Wikidumper? Alf photoman 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn nn, vanity, no sources. Skrewler 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability doesnt matter... verifiability does... if it cant be verified it needs to go.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, advertising, self-promotion and an external link. makes no sense to keep pages like this one. - Femmina 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, esp. the commentary by macman. Eusebeus 12:36, 8 December 2006 (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.