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 keep. Neil (►) 09:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB: no reliable, external, second hand sources whatsoever. The article seems to have to survived the previous nomination on it's Alexa ranking and amount of google hits alone, which is completely against deletion policy. The first requirement of WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Remember that other blogs are not WP:RS, per that policy. Mackan 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The first Afd was an exasperating read that basically concluded the article should be kept on the basis of google hits and "I've heard of it" arguments. The article seems to be "referenced" by first party materials. I don't see any reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This reference [1] is from Reason magazine. Daphne Merkin wrote about Jihad Watch in her column 'The Way We Live Now' in the New York Times on August 15 2004, though I can't link to it as it's behind the subscriber wall. She writes 'To this end we have been glued to the Internet throughout this long hot summer of beheadings and terrorist scares, checking out Web sites with names likes Blogs of War, Jihad Watch and Above Top Secret.' Nick mallory 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason Online reference gives only a rather trivial mention, made in passing. The NY mention is extremely trivial, as it only mentions the name of the blog. Mackan 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. CAIR and the Guardian's Whitaker certainly aren't treating the subject "trivially". This page has been updated rather quickly since this AfD began.--Mike18xx 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The author is notable, the blog is not. At most, create a short section on Robert Spencer regarding the blog. Tarc 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - blog is extremely notable. why go through a second AfD? Misheu 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? --Haemo 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wasting too much time on looking things up for everybody - there is a catch 22 here when blogs which are well known and respected in the blogosphere are being attacked for notability. A blog by essence is a person who does not go through the regular press and feels that the regular press does not give voice to his ideas. It would be very rare for blogs which go against the mainstream to appear in the mainstream, and yet some blogs are immensely popular. Why is a blog notable only if some second writer in the New York Times decided to write an editorial on it and not if it's constantly quoted in other blogs and its opinions referred to everywhere? From my point of view, it's notable since when I look up information on Islam, I run into it quite often. This entry went through an AfD less than half a year ago, and there's no reason it should go through it again.Misheu 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "mainstream media" has not neglected blogs - they are routinely featured, and mentioned, on radio, in press, and on TV. Wolf Blitzer has a whole "blog-watch" section - "The Situation Online". The point is that blogs need reliable sources to back up their notability - and the key to reliability is oversight; blogs are really, at their heart, nothing more than a special personal website where someone talks about their thoughts. There's no fact checking, no editorial oversight - and thus we can't call them "reliable sources". Think about it this way - blogs are like people talking; they could be influential, well-spoken people, but they're still just people talking. They could be mistaken, they could be inaccurate. They could be outright lying. Without any oversight, we have no way to know. As such, blogs aren't reliable sources - well, most blogs. If someone is talked about on blogs, that's really not any evidence of notability; any more than someone being discussed on Myspace, or Facebook, is evidence of notability. If someone is truly notable, they should have reliable third party souces about them - and the simple fact is that your assertion that the "mainstream media" refuses to cover blogs is not true. Look at someone like Michele Malkin - she has reliable sources; why doesn't this one? --Haemo 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Oversight" is just code for argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallies. The New York Times has been lying for eighty straight years, and enshrines its lies in the form of Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize. Regards Malkin; she plays ball by staying within the bounds of criticism permitted by the Coke & Pepsi Party.--Mike18xx 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo, your argument is about two different things. There's a question is a blog is "notable" and then there's a question if it's "trustworthy". A blog doesn't have to rely on good sources in order to be notable. Sometimes the person who shouts the loudest gets heard. I still think that a blog which is widely read is notable and that people should be able to find information about it Misheu 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "the situation online". It is a blog run by CNN, I don't see that it's a way for the mainstream media to recognize blogs. Misheu 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "The Situation Online" is also a segment on Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room", a news program broadcast weekdays on CNN. Secondly, it's not about two different things at all - the point is that blogs cannot be used to source the notability of a subject, because they are not reliable sources. I am not saying that blogs cannot be notable, because they are not reliable sources, as you seem to believe. As for Mike18xx, you're welcome to discuss altering policy to make the New York Times no longer a reliable source, but that's not something that we discuss on this page. --Haemo 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The jihad against Wikipedia articles critical of Islam continues....--Mike18xx 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.Mackan 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I'm seeing a lot of "KEEP NOTABLE!" and "WHY DO YOU HATE THE SUBJECT" arguments here, but not any reliable sources. --Haemo 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alexa rank for www.jihadwatch.org is 38,363 which seems too low to establish notability. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - anything in the top 50,000 is impressive --ProtectWomen 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean to say that we are destined to have 50,000 web page articles because they are "impressive"? NOT! Being able to tie a cherry stem in a knot with your tongue is impressive, but it's not notable. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be interested to hear why we shouldn't eventually have 50,000 articles about web pages, or even 500,000 articles about web pages. Or five million, for that matter. It's a question of scope - the English Wikipedia already has nearly two million articles (and counting!), and in a few years' time it might have 10 or 20 million, so it's not as if 50,000 is an unfeasibly large number of articles in this context. The Britannica wouldn't, but... you know, the Britannica is a bit limited by the fact that it's printed on several thousand slices of dead tree that you have to store somewhere in your house. Wikipedia, thankfully, is not. As for tying a cherry stem in a knot with your tongue... no, that's not notable, but tying your tongue in a knot using a cherry stem certainly would be... AdorableRuffian 23:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable blog as per sources. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --Haemo 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there are reliable, non-trivial sources provided. As at right now, there are neither. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joining in the chorus that keeping would require the citation of independent sources establishing notability. I've actually heard of this blog, so I suspect there might be such sources; if citation is beefed up, drop me a note and I'll consider opposing deletion. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Survived first AfD and will survive this one. The website is notable enough that opponents would like to see article deleted. Apparently some others suggested merge at the first AfD (into Robert Spencer). The site on its own has been mentioned on many radio shows (where Spencer has been interviewed). As the article stands by itself, it doesn't appear to violate any policy. It is brief and to the point. --ProtectWomen 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's brief and to the point, but entirely lacking in independent, non-trivial sources at the moment. If there are non-trivial mentions of the website on radio shows, this would be the kind of thing which might sway people advocating deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember, back in the hazy mists of yore, when Wikipedia containing all kinds of interesting articles -- instead of only articles deemed mentionable by FFC-licensed dinosaur paleo-media that nobody with a computer and a room-temperature IQ has relied on for information for at least ten years running.--Mike18xx 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil here - personal attacks (even broad-based ones) aren't a good way to go. The point remains that just because an article is interesting doesn't mean that it's good to be kept. Likewise, if there are reliable, neutral and non-trivial sources, this article will be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making the point that the article should be kept because it's "interesting". In fact, due to all of the IMNSHO rubbish guidelines, it's almost impossible to *make* an article interesting anymore. "Reliable", "neutral", "trivial" -- they're all a great, steaming load of euphamistic arbitrary rubbish excuses for zotting out things one doesn't want to see, and, more importantly, doesn't want anyone ELSE to see.--Mike18xx 08:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete If this website is worthy of keeping, then I can bring tons more that are 'emotionally' favorable to many folks' own biases. No one refers to jihadwatch as a 'source' of any pertinent, valid or objective information. Rather, it is considered just a stop for bashing the "other" and spewing hatred. In fact, I would be fine if it was a fountain of hate, but if it is notable and referred to by secondary sources. That is not happening. Abureem 12:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to tell demonstrable falsehoods like that to buttress your "Strong Delete"; it'll get counted not matter how rational, spurious, or entirely absent the supporting argument is. (Tell all your friends! Facts and history are now up to a vote, so don't delay!)--Mike18xx 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep True, nobody looks at JW for unbiased information. But JW is notable as the most important source of strong biased opinion on the issues involved, and is quoted as such. The evidence for this in the article is sufficient. The standard is sourceable, not sourced, so if one thinks there are sources, that's a reason to keep. 06:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)DGG

• Comment Wow. You're good! I'm impressed... librarian, eh ? DGG ftw  :-) --ProtectWomen 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What? You can't seriously be contenting that this is a valid argument for keeping this. Sourceable does not mean that "people think there are sources" - it means that people have found sources but they have not been included in the article. No one has demonstrated that reliable sources exist for this article that assert or support notability. --Haemo 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, the fact that the blog itself is biased is neither here nor there (if we only had articles about unbiased things, there'd be no articles on any politicians for a start). What is required is unbiased information demonstrating that this site is in some way notable. Additionally, it should be noted that (as I believe UncleG has said before), the closing admin doesn't work part-time as a verification source. If the article is sourceable, it behooves those calling it that to find these sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to "Jihad Watch" showing the site is notable. CAIR thinks its notable enough, and I just brought some of their references to this blog. Misheu 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any non-trivial coverage of JW in those new references. I see a collection of things which say "Robert Spencer runs Jihad Watch" (one such source saying so once off its own bat and then again when it lists what Spencer is when he responds to a question) and one thing saying that Horowitz is likewise involved. There's an article on the Muhammad cartoons which says in passing that someone said something about it on JW and an article from CAIR saying that because Spencer spoke at a place, so too should someone holding a different view. None of these are non-trivial, and one could argue that some of them are hardly even about JW in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I see CAIR actively watching Jihad Watch and putting out press releases on its activities. They bring whole quotes from the site. I then see CNN deciding to introduce Robert Spencer as the Director of Jihad Watch. there's another link to C-SPAN with the same intro. In other words, Jihad Watch is the reason he's being interviewed. It's an important enough blog that both CNN and C-SPAN ASSUME everybody knows what they're talking about. And then there's the link from The Guardian who call Jihad Watch a "notoriously Islamophobic website" (no mention to Spencer there at all). So what if the article is not about Jihad Watch. It was obviously important enough to mention. That's the point of bringing sources here. Misheu 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to agree on the CAIR site, although I'd hasten to point out that this is only one source. If there are more press releases about it, they'd definitely help things here. The CNN transcripts don't wash with me, I'm afraid. They consist of someone being introduced as "the director of JW", and then having that as their identifier the first time they speak. News networks do this kind of thing with a whole host of bodies, both notable and non-notable: "Joe Bloggs, the President of Relevant Special Interest Group, joins us live in the studio". That doesn't mean that Relevant Special Interest Group is notable, and it may not even mean that Bloggs is notable. Spencer may not have been interviewed were it not for the site (he's written a book or two, so he might get interviews based on that), but he's being interviewed as himself. The Guardian link doesn't count at all - the article is about a related issue and mentions JW in passing, so it's not a non-trivial reference. "So what if the article is not about Jihad Watch"? So the article isn't a non-trivial source, that's the bottom line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll leave that up to whoever decides on these things, since we obviously don't agree. If Jihad Watch hadn't been notable, CNN would not use that as a way to introduce Robert Spencer. Misheu 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, August 10, 2006 (I suggest that interested parties archive that video as evidence that it actually happened.)--Mike18xx 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying that it didn't happen. The question is whether the fact that he was introduced as heading the group counts as a non-trivial mention. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is; virtually no one would know who Spencer is (and subsequently run off to buy his books) were it not for the site. In the case of Faith Freedom International and its founder, it's the site that has a Wikipedia entry while its founder does not.--Mike18xx 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. Particularly in the current international climate, anyone who writes a book regarding Islam (whichever view on it they have) is probably going to make some money out of it and be seen as enough of an expert to appear as a talking head on a cable news show. As I said earlier, just because someone is introduced as the President of Group X or the Founder of Organisation Y doesn't automatically mean that Group X or Organisation Y is notable. In a great many cases (not that I'm saying this is the case here), the group may be pretty much a vehicle for its president to put his/her views across, in which case it's the president who's notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same argument applies to Faith Freedom International and Ali Sina (wherein FFI has an entry and Sina does not); if Sina is interviewed, should we re-create his entry and delete FFI's? And Robert Jordan doesn't write much at his sites; Hugh Fitzgerald is the major article writer by an order of magnitude.--Mike18xx 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, and bear in mind that I'm not saying that it is, then maybe those situations need to be looked at. The fact that FFI has an article may mean that it just hasn't been AfD'd yet (or that something went wrong with the AfD when it was listen), or indeed it might mean that there's more to FFI than just Sina. Likewise, the question needs to be asked about Sina as to whether he's written books and attracted press coverage. I don't know either way as yet. I haven't had a thorough look at Jordan's article, but he appears to be independently notable aside from his website, so regardless of who does most of the writing there, I don't (currently) see anything wrong with having an article on him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how appalling it is to those of us capable of thinking for ourselves to listen to others demand that the encyclopedias we read be castrated of articles not pre-shot through the gizzards of Acanema, The Big Lie Factory, or The Associated Guild of Hacks Avoiding Real-Work For Life?--Mike18xx 07:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since Dhimmiwatch has been merged with Jihadwatch, then notable Dhimmiwatch mentions should count. I've added a couple to the Dhimmiwatch section. This is in addition to the already existing notable references in the criticism section (e.g., CAIR's press-release and Whitaker's Guardian column. If a notable critic "notices" you and criticizes you in public in a notable medium, you are then, ipso-facto, notable yourself.--Mike18xx 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's Review - I'll go through the sources given, with respect to notability.

1. [2] - Sourcing the statement "Jihad Watch is a popular[1] website and blog". The citation is false - the sum mention of the website is as follows "He also has a Web site, Jihad Watch, where he chronicles embarrassing events involving Muslims". Nowhere in this does it ever assert that Jihad Watch is "popular" - this does not back up the statement it is cited for, nor does it assert any notability for the web site.
2. [3] - The sum mention of Jihad Watch is "Robert Spencer, who is a terrorism expert and a director of jihad watch". This is a highly trivial mention, and certainly doesn't assert any notability for the subject.
3. [4] - The sum mention of Jihad Watch is "Robert Spencer, he`s from Jihad Watch and author of "The Truth About Muhammad". Again, a highly trivial mention, and doesn't assert any notability for the subject.
4. [5] - The sum mention of Jihad Watch here is "Director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center,". Again, as above.
5. [6]. The sum total of the mention of Jihad Watch here is "He is involved with Campus Watch, Jihad Watch, Professors Watch and Media Watch". Again, as above.
6. [7]. The mention here is "SPENCER: JihadWatch.org and there are two daily news sites there, Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch, which are updated daily with news of the international jihad, commentary to help explain what it is that’s going on and how". Again, as above.
7. [8]Again, the sum mention is "notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch, for instance". Again, as above.

In short, none of the sources back up notability in any meaningful way - I think you've got a very strong case that Robert Spencer is notable; perhaps you should merge this to his page, instead of deleting it. --Haemo 14:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore CAIR's obsessiveness with this site. The entry currently has two press releases out of several. In any case, you are right about the "popular" part. I had seen a reference referring to it as such but I obviously linked the wrong one and I have no idea which one it was now. About the others, I'll repeat again that we disagree. Would CNN bring George Bush as "the Washington DC HS51 PTA president"? In this case, news media who themselves will not quote Jihad Watch, are assuming everybody knows what it is. That makes it notable. Misheu 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo, I'd like to thank you for demonstrating in front of everyone that Jihad Watch does meet Wikipedia's "multiple references" requirement for notability. "(I)n any meaning way" is not a requirement; it is that notable sources are talking about the site which, in turn, makes the site notable.--Mike18xx 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have selectively ommitted the part about "non-trivial references which assert and support the notability of the subject". It is patently untrue that notability guidelines are in any way summable as "notable sources talked about, ergo it is notable" - the standard is it must have "multiple reliable sources which give the subject signifigant (as opposed to trivial) coverage. As I explained, all of the coverage in the cited lists are still trivial.

In addition, this is a silly statement - "In this case, news media who themselves will not quote Jihad Watch, are assuming everybody knows what it is. That makes it notable.", and patently doesn't meet notability guidelines. It could very well be that Mr Spencer simply asked to be introduced as such - or that, in the fast-paced world of cable news, they simply don't have time to explain what Jihad Watch is every time they introduce someone. People from non-notable organizations are routinely introduced on news of all kinds as being "X of Y". You can't use an original research or synthesis argument is seriously assert notability. --Haemo 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My reasoning for keeping the article is thus: Michelle Malkin is a notable commentator, and the articles she writes, syndicated and published by hundreds of newspapers, would be considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources, therefore she is a reliable source. She writes about Jihad Watch rather a lot on her blog, which makes Jihad Watch notable, and Jihad Watch itself is written by a notable person, which serves to increase its notability. Lots of policies are being waved around by the delete people, saying you can't consider blogs and suchlike, but if deletion policy somehow says that Malkin is reliable when her writings are printed in a newspaper, but unreliable when the exact same writings appear on her own website, then something has to be wrong with those policies. Frankly, it isn't reasonable to say that Malkin's blog is no more worthy a source than some Blogspot blog written by a random nobody. AdorableRuffian 22:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Malkin's writings are published in a paper, they are reviewed by an editorial board. When Malkin posts on her blog, her writings are reviewed by no one - that is the difference, and why blogs are not reliable sources. A source can be notable without being reliable. --Haemo 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the New York Times editorial board "reviewed" years of Duranty's odious lying for a genocidial tyrant? I know you saw that, because you replied to it, Haemo. It's hypocrisy in service of appeal-to-authority fallacies in order to *pretend* to have an intellectually reasoned basis for deciding that other people shouldn't see something you don't like on an internet medium with theoretically infinite capacity. Furthermore, when Malkin blathers incoherently, her blathery is reviewed by other bloggers, some of whom think she's a duplicious weasel. (Follow those nested links all the way through, and you'll see that the *only* "reviewing" is being done by bloggers.) Meanwhile, there are editors here who want the readers to believe that CAIR is a "reliable" source of criticism concerning Jihad Watch, but don't want them to also learn that CAIR is a repugnant front group for Hamas.--Mike18xx 04:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:NOTE if you want to get them changed - but don't try to do an end-run around policy at a deletion debate instead. This isn't the place to argue that blogs should be considered reliable sources, or the NYT not a reliable source. We don't make guidelines here - we apply them. --Haemo 04:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no illusions whatsoever that the guidelines are about to change, Haemo (they'll probably get worse); I just like to see a smidgeon less bald-faced hypocrisy.--Mike18xx 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is really part of a wider debate about the reliability of alternative media vs. traditional media, something which has been raised countless times. At the end of the day, we don't actually know what editorial review processes, if any, take place at either The New York Times or at Michelle Malkin's web site - there's no accountability there - so we don't really have any objective basis for asserting that one is more reliable than the other. It isn't really enough to wave a policy around and say that Malkin's blog is self-published, because those policies and guidelines don't completely exclude self-published sources. I think part of this is inspired by prejudice against the term "blog"; as with "tabloid", it's generally assumed to have a bearing on the quality of what is written, and not just the format in which it appears. Some "blogs" are highly-respected political magazines, and others constitute the online presences of notable and widely-read columnists. AdorableRuffian 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdorableRuffian, I don't think the argument is only about reliability. The question, as I see it is: if something is popular in among blogs, does it count as "notable". If Jihad Watch would write "Mr. X is a terrorist", for example, I don't think that's enough for saying on Mr. X's page that he's a terrorist. In fact, it's not reliable at all. However, if many people read Jihad Watch and therefore think now that Mr. X is a terrorist, that makes Jihad Watch in itself notable. It doesn't really matter that "Mr. X is a terrorist" would never appear in printed media. It also doesn't matter that Jihad Watch is never quoted. After all, no self respecting journalist would quote a site considered unreliable. What would they do? They would quote the sources Jihad Watch uses, and they would react to the ideas on Jihad Watch. That makes a site notable, but unless you look in the blogosphere itself, it's completely unprovable. At least, that's how I see this debate. Misheu 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very notable, as stated above--Sefringle 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above in my detailed explanation of why it's not notable, which no one has disputed for any policy-based reason? Or is there some compelling argument I missed? --Haemo 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB states the following reguarding trivial sources: Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores

Your explanation fails to prove any of the above about the sources given. Specificly the 7th source. But since you asked, here is another source that mentions Jihad Watch for you to prove "trivial".[9]--Sefringle 05:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't! In virtually every instance, the sum of what was quoted on the page was stated there - and it typically amounts to less than one sentence; even in #7. And your source is an article from Jihad Watch - it doesn't assert, or support any notability for the subject. --Haemo 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sites are stating more than just the address or the times in which the content was updated. Prehaps you can show me exactly which guideline states that the entire page needs to be about the website, as that seems to be what you are looking for.--Sefringle 06:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - most are saying something to the effect of "Mr Spencer is a director of Jihad Watch" - which is a trivial mention. The list you quoted above are such as examples; i.e. not an inclusive list - I never said anything to the effect that the whole page has to be about the subject. However, as the guideline states, it should be substantially or entirely about the subject. None of these are. --Haemo 06:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Many of them cover the website pretty well. The Reason magazine reference certianly isn't trivial. They donate a good amount of information to describing the website. Likewise the q&a link certianly isn't trivial reference. The website is mentioned several times there.--Sefringle 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, by any objective or reasonable interpretation of the word "trivial" - I don't see any which give any substantial coverage to the website; a lot to its ideas, and to its founder, but generally no more than 10 words to the website. Care to point out any that do? Also, which Reason article are we talking about? --Haemo 07:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable? You're streching the definition of trivial here. Secondly, Prehaps you can show me where in the notability (or WEB notability) guideline the word "substantial" is. The Resaon article [10] has an entire paragraph on the website, and the q&a link [11] mentions the site several times, many times for substantial lengths of time--Sefringle 07:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) No, I'm not - I'm quoting Wikipedia guidelines - which as you will note, clearly contains the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Substantial is a good synonym for what you're looking for in coverage - regardless, you want non-trivial; as the footnote to trivial explains, one-sentence mentions are clearly trivial. --Haemo 07:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote reads "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." This is certianly met in many of the sources--Sefringle 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me more than one that does that, and I'll change my argument. --Haemo 07:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I showed you two, look at the links I gave again.--Sefringle 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? It's been a long discussion, and I'm no longer sure which references people are referring to. Just indulge me and link them. --Haemo 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[12][13]--Sefringle 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see. The Reason article is good - I like that one. However, the other one doesn't qualify, since the mention is trivial. However, if you can find another source like the Reason article, there would be no question here. I'm accordingly changing my !vote to "Weak Delete". --Haemo 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia's Jihad?Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Daily Pundit, Global Politician. All came under fire by the same editors. Interestingly, GP (of which I am the senior editor) had profile for a long time without a problem when we ran predominatly liberal articles. Recently, several conservative, anti-Islamist writers joined and bingo, we came under fire. I'm sure it's a coincidence...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.186.41 (talk • contribs) — 24.185.186.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So, what is your rationale for keeping this again? --Haemo 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each has magazine/blog own reasons, but I just wanted to point out that the Wikipedia Jihad is against very specific web sites. As soon as a web site begins to deal with Islamism, AfD appears.

In the case of Jihad Watch, it's notable precisely because it's so popular. What makes NY Post notable? People read it. If people stopped reading NYP, all the references to it in other media would likely disappear. The other reason, of course, is NYP's access to political figures, as displayed, for example, by their interviews and investigative reports.

I actually read Jihad Watch very rarely and have no stake here. But when I did want to find out what it's about and who's behind it, I turned to wikipedia.

This is certainly one of the top 5 daily/weekly/monthly publications on Islamism and anyone studying the subject will eventually stumble upon Jihad Watch

It's not just a matter of listing all the top 50,000 or top 500,000 web sites - it's also the subject matter. A search engine that has a rank of 20,000 shouldn't be covered because there are many search engines in the top 100 or at least top 1,000. But a website on Islamism that's in the top 100,000 should definitely be covered because it means that it's one of the top web sites on the subject matter. Besides several popular web magazines and blogs, what other media is there that is specifically focusing on covering radical Islam on daily basis? Wouldn't you expect to cover at least some publications dealing with this very important subject or is Islamism not important only 6 years after 9/11?! If Islamism is an important subject, all the web magazines, blogs and bloggers I listed should stay. User:globalpolitician

This may be your personal criterion for "notability" - but we, as an encyclopedia have a different one - based on reliable sources, not nebulous and unsourced appeals to "popularity". In fact, one of the core guidelines for notability is that notability is not the same as popularity. --07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I hadn't even heard of this article before finding it here on Wikipedia, and as mentioned there doesn't seem to be much in the way of second hand sources. If anything, just go with the earlier suggestion of creating a subsection for this on the Robert Spencer article. I don't think this little site is notable enough to warrant its own. MezzoMezzo 06:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There seems to be enough references to the site from enough reliable and independent sources e.g. "notoriously Islamophobic website" [14], "Jihad Watch...traffics fairly openly in such stuff." [15] as well as CAIR who call it "Jihad Watch Internet hate site" [16] that our Wikipedia readers will know, a), what it represents and b), that it is a sufficiently representative example of the genre. We need not agree with the actual web site contents or presentation. There are no set Wikipedia standards as to how many links make a site notable other than it is "multiple" (i.e. more than 1 or 2) and that it is non-trivial (If I say in a major newspaper site "'x' is Islamophobic" it is non-trivial even though I have used just 3 words as the claim is non-trivial not how many words it uses). Ttiotsw 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with notability. Oh, there are lots of sources - but none of them give Jihad Watch any substantial coverage. Saying "x is run by so and so" or "y is Islamic" is still a trivial mention - a non-trivial mention for the subject gives it substantial coverage in a given reliable source. None of these do. --Haemo 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your definition of trivial. Unfortunately for you, it seems your definition of trivial is a bit more constrictiong than that of most people.--Sefringle 07:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of trivial, though, has a firm basis in Wikipedia policy, which is the criterion for inclusion. --Haemo 07:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to read difference between policy and guidelines. We're talking about guidelines and they are "not set in stone". You make up your definition, I make up mine and they make up theirs - in the end it is a concensus. Ttiotsw 07:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one you discuss on the relevant talk page; not here. What has been proposed is a radical change in what is acceptable as a reliable source, and it is not acceptable to do an end-run around the process in such a manner. The concensus is forged there, not here - and I suggest if you want it changed, you argue on the appropriate place. --Haemo 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to claim that a guideline is the same as policy, or that your own personal interpretation/opinion is the same as policy. Personally I don't believe there is such a thing as an "end-run around the process". I'm generally in favour of the views expressed in WP:BASH: "policy and guidelines are supposed to flow out of consensus; they are not laws that place some opinions out of bounds." The "process" here is to interpret guidelines and express opinions; there is no "black and white" here, and the whole thing is always going to be very subjective. At the end of the day, you have your view about how AfD should work, and other people have theirs; both are equally valid (so please let's have no more of this "not acceptable" stuff). Policies and guidelines are a constant work in progress; my view is that AfD can only work if it is treated as part of the guideline and policy creation process, rather than something that is somehow completely divorced from that process. AdorableRuffian 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never did such a thing - but I must make the point that we have talk pages for a reason, and they are divorced from the AfD discussion for the same reason. AfD debates can bring up issues, but those issues are very broad, and must be discussed by the community as a whole - and not just on any particular AfD discussion. The consensus discussed is a community consensus, not just that of a single AfD debate. --Haemo 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references section makes it obvious that it has recieved more then enough media attention to make it worth having an article about. -- Karl Meier 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Great amount of press coverage by reliable sources. --Oakshade 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question both of the above, asking how - we're still looking for a second non-trivial reliable source here. --Haemo 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability aplenty and well referenced article. Even cited by leftist Guardian Decoratrix 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people even reading this? It's not cited by the Guardian; the sum mention of "Jihad Watch" in that article is "He is involved with ... Jihad Watch,". That's it - the very definition of a "trivial mention". --Haemo 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were so trivial as you suppose, then the Guardian wouldn't have introduced their guest by linking him to an organization which they surmised their audience had greater name recognition of than that of the guest himself.--Mike18xx 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this argument earlier - it's ridiculous. They're not assuming Jihad Watch is more well-known than he is - they're simply introducing him, and plugging one of his organizations. News stations routinely introduce people as being members of non-notable organizations. To assert otherwise is pure inference on the part of the viewer. --Haemo 07:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, look at what else he's introduced as "being involved with Campus Watch, Jihad Watch, Professors Watch and Media Watch;" - it's not even a unique mention. --Haemo 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I claim: The sole reason you are concerned with whether or not said organizations are "notable" is for whether or not you can gleen an excuse to delete this article for ulterior motives which you wouldn't care to divulge. Tell me I'm wrong with a straight-face.--Mike18xx 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I claim you don't know boo about my ulterior motives, or what-have-you, and it's not exactly civil to level such a a personal attack against me. I couldn't give two figs about this blog, and wouldn't - if it didn't show up on this encyclopedia lacking sufficient sources to meet guidelines. Look at my edit history - you'll see I have no vested interest in this topic whatsoever. --Haemo 07:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if your motives are indeed different than those of the overwhelming majority of delete votes cast by editors with not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surnames and handles with regards to Wikipedia AfDs concerning topics, persons, publications and organizations which are critical of Islam.--Mike18xx 08:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my surname is English - and my username is Latin - so have no fear on that account! --Haemo 08:57, 29 May 2007 (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.