Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandagon

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. Proto::► 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandagon

Non-notable blog. The site fails WP:WEB. The passing mention in Playboy is trivial and does not satisfy the WP:WEB requirement. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:WEB at all. It is a major political blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrnBru001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Folantin 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Electric Eye (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The passing mention in Playboy" is that magazine's October 2006 list of the "Top Ten Political Blogs". This does not seem a "trivial" distinction. It thereby meets criterion #2 of WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Keep: it was just nominated as a finalist for "best liberal blog" in the 2006 Weblog Awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Keep The Fox Man of Fire 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pandagon is basically a hate site. It would do badly as a page in the wikipedia since it would encourage wiki nazis to police it and make sure that any evidence that it was a hate site would remain deleted. OTOH, they had a major dick fight with FARK tonight and they lost with Amanda's panty's getting so knotted up they disappeared up her slit. She then proceeded to moderate all the comments from FARK out while calling FARKers a bunch of rapists. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2460478 Yeah, so delete Mr.POV 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Its consider a major liberal political blog. If other blog have survived this (most likely POV) challenge this one should too. IrnBru001 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --HarmonicFeather 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the requirements of the standard? "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Three different example have been cited to satisify criteria two "he website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." First the Play Boy award, second the Weblog Award, third being a featured blog at a major political conference. There is a fourth the Wampum Award that they have also won that I'm trying to find a good source for. So given these 3 example and given that I only need one how does this fail the test? IrnBru001 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it can be fairly characterized as "a hate site" is immaterial. We're judging notability, not virtue. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. yandman 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why it doesn't meet the second criteria as I have suggested it does? This is a discussion not just a vote. IrnBru001 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weblog Awards and the Take Back America conference do not get articles, and they are sited as awards. Awards must be notable to be counted. Being in the top ten of a major magazine is not enough, unless it was above #3. FirefoxMan 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. I believe both are important enough to get their own articles. I see no reason to think that the top ten of a major magazine isn't enough. Your claim in not supported in the guideline. The article mets the current guideline, you are now trying to change the guideline. The article needs to be judged against the guideline AS IT IS WRITTEN. If you want to change that guideline then discuss it on that pages talk page. IrnBru001 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it an award to be in a list, and AfDs are supposed to be ask users for their input and opinion on the noteworthiness of a article. FirefoxMan 23:12, 12 December 2006 (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.