Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Politician (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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Politician

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page to my mind clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. The long list of uncited interviewees has remained uncited since the last nomination for deletion in 2007, and the tags calling for more independent sources and greater demonstration of notability have gone unaddressed for well over a year. The further links are also merely a link to the site's (rather poor) Alexa rank and its listing at Archive.org, as if to superficially head off any accusations of non-notability. It is probably also worth mentioning that the creator (and by far the biggest contributor) to this website, Sam Vaknin, is a self-confessed narcissist most notable for being the subject of a documentary about psychopathy. As such, this is very likely (to my mind obviously) an example of WP:SPIP. My own research has not uncovered any way of addressing these problems, and as such I nominate this article for deletion. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also important to note that several of the users who voted to keep the article last time were obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be over egging your pudding. In the previous afd, one "keeper" was outed as a sockpuppet but there are still three other "keepers" who are bone fide registered users still currently editing Wikipedia. Also I notice you have done at least one POV edit to Sam Vaknin not supported by the source - I have corrected one of them. Personally I am a Vaknin agnostic but you seem to have an anti-Vaknin agenda.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful finds in news, no indication of notability. --John Nagle (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the notability test for me. The proposers comment about Vaknin "most notable for being the subject of a documentary about psychopathy" sounds like a smear - yes he did feature in a not very flattering film abut him but it is a bit much to claim that the film is the last word on him, the film does actually include some positive things about him anyway. This afd is about Global Politician anyway not Vaknin, the fact that Vaknin is involved with Global Politician is fairly incidental. Also Vaknin only became the chief editor of Global Politician a couple of years ago and well after the last afd. Loads of wiki articles are uncited - not in itself a reason for deletion.--Penbat (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the proposer himself is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HauntologicalPhenomenon --Penbat (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been closed, as it was nothing but a fishing expedition. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough citations for pieces giving "globalpolitician.com" as source in Google Books to convince me that this is a notable new media outlet [1]. GB esitmates some 300+ results and the there are at least 100 actual citations (I went through them manually). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:N according to [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] with [7].-- Dewritech (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article reminds me of the Assyrian International News Agency. At least in that case they the "news agency" has a rather single-minded purpose, so eventually I found a brief independent academic note about its purpose. Given that Global Politician has strong aspects of aggregation like The Huffington Post, it is probably going to be much more difficult to find commentary about their editorial line or overall nature of the publication. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, so there's not enough content from which to draw and write the Wikipedia article. Redirect to David Storobin after deleting. The magazine is quoted often in CQ Homeland Security and the USA online based magazine also seems to have been popular in the Arab world (Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.). My impression is that Global Politician was able to get contributions from important writers from countries less friendly to the USA and have them give up a little information, in response to which CQ Homeland Security treated it as important information. I think that Global Politician had a significant impact. It would have been nice to read this in a reliable source instead of my own original research (observation). I didn't find any significant coverage of the magazine. Some info that would be good for the article includes: New York Business January 16, 2012, New York Times February 10, 2012 Mostly, the sources quote from the magazine. Comments on website Philadelphia Inquirer October 21, 2007 Cite to the magazine, but not about the magazine: "Iran's € [euro] Oil Bourse vs US$ [dollar]". APS Review Oil Market Trends. 66 (10). Reprinted at captaincynic.com. March 6, 2006. Retrieved September 30, 2012.; Quotes magazine: World News Connection September 14, 2006; quotes magazine Investor's Business Daily September 24, 2007; Quotes magazine Arab News April 21, 2009; quotes magazine Yemen Times August 30, 2009, cites to magazine Palestine Chronicle December 25, 2009, World News Connection March 19, 2010, mentioned in byline The Majallah January 2, 2012. Since quoting the magazine is not about the magazine, they do not offer much content to use to expand the Global Politician article itself. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this [8] where a regular newspaper had a writer who also wrote articles for them. The New York Times article listing the guy who created it, and information about it therefrom, is something []. This seems to be a legitimate news source, with a proper staff to filter anything submitted to them. And if other news sources already determined to be reliable sources, reference them as a reliable source, than so it is confirmed. Fact: Most newspapers do not have any real coverage talking just about them, but still get articles do to common sense. Dream Focus 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and merge: agree that there is third party coverage of this, but nothing extensive to write a full article. The extensive list of interviewees is unsourced and, even if it was sourced, inappropriate. In the absence of any real information sourced to reliable and independent sources, it's best to merge it with the article about its creator. Vcessayist (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the presidents of various nations and other important people have been interviewed by them. That does count towards their notability. Different people besides the site's creator have interviewed them. I'm adding references to that now. Dream Focus 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Storobin. I looked at all the sources linked in the article and on this AfD page, and they all seem to be either quoting the magazine or just mentioning it in passing, with the exception of this New York Times piece. The mention in the NYT piece isn't all that long, and I don't think it is enough to prove the notability of Global Politician by itself. There is a significant mention of the magazine already at David Storobin, so a merge there would probably be the best outcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be considered notable based on the number of world leaders and others that have been interviewed there? Dream Focus 00:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tijfo098 and Dewritech. There are plenty of good sources, if you just wade into the deep end of the pool known as teh Internets. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.