- 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Libcom
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Libcom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page was nominated for AfD back in 2005 [1]. Not sure what happened to it but I'm nominating again for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 03:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The first two citations and first external link are simply to the site itself, the Media Bias/Fact check citation is from a website that solely analyzes site bias without taking into account anything else (and it's only one site, and there aren't any other significant mentions in reliable sources), the Daily Beast article does not focus on the site and is just a brief reference, and the second external link, to the site's Facebook page, does not count for notability either. A Google search shows no other mentions in reliable sources. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey I'm the creator of this page. I argue in favor of preserving this article on the following points:
- Libcom. org is a highly popular website with above average daily views, and a large amount of registered users.
- Libcom has been cited by the popular online news source The Daily Beast
- Libcom.org represents a ideological position that has been underrepresented within wikipedia articles, that of Anarchism
- Libcom.org has been expanded its audience outreach and is likely to quickly gain in popularity and visibility in the near future.
- There near identical articles on the same subject in non-English language wikis, most specifically Spanish.
- Libcom has received a review from popular media fact checking website
- Libcom is a significant source of far-left film, literary, and political criticism, making it an asset for discussion of left wing topics.
- Numerous wiki articles link to The Libcom website — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
S1d6arrett23 (
talk •
contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- The key here is reliable sources. Currently, there just don't seem to be enough of them to have a useful Wikipedia article; simply being popular doesn't help because if there aren't enough reliable sources, what will be cited to properly support the claims in this article? To deal with your other points:
- The Daily Beast is a reliable source, but the article is not about Libcom itself and is only a brief mention. Not much else can be found in other areas.
- The ideological position is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor a place for promoting any viewpoints.
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your personal prediction may not be correct. If this does become more visible in the future and more reliable sources talk about it, an article can be created then.
- Its presence in other wikis does not necessarily mean it should be here, as different projects have different standards. I noticed that the Spanish and Czech versions don't have many reliable sources (Spanish only has the site itself as an external link, the Czech version only mentions alexa.com).
- The Media Matters website reviews websites without regard to importance. Even if we count it, we only have one source and another brief mention, which may not be enough for an article.
- Whether this is used as a source in Wikipedia is different from whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. The former can occur without the latter. Not to mention that the obvious political bias may make it a problematic source.
- 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Some extra stuff I just noticed: While I noticed some more sources have been added, they still may not establish notability. The Brooklyn Rail article was partially written by Libcom itself, arguably making it a primary source. The journal articles are not about Libcom and merely use files hosted on Libcom as a citation. Notability is not inherited, and it would be unfeasible to have an article for every single source that has been cited in a journal. Also, notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination) was closed as delete. It appears that Libcom.org has been deleted as a Wikipedia article, but Libcom is still around, despite both of those articles being about the same thing. Frankly, this should perhaps be speedy deleted per G4 as a recreation of deleted material that doesn't address the reasons for deletion (not enough coverage in reliable sources). 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 07:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your counter-points to my defense of this article, but I continue to hold the position that this article should be maintained in present form because Libcom is a significant source of information from a left-wing perspective and its notability within the left wing community justifies its relevance as a subject. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
S1d6arrett23 (
talk •
contribs) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ S1d6arrett23: As I've said before, none of this has to do with whether Libcom can be cited in Wikipedia. Even if the article is deleted, Libcom can still be used as a source (if the source guidelines are followed, of course). As for notability within the left-wing community, while it might be popular, there still may not be enough reliable sources; a lot of the websites I've found discussing Libcom are things such as blogs and forums, or articles posted by the site itself, which generally aren't reliable. Or there are brief mentions or citations, such as the newly added sources, which don't give enough information to establish notability or write an article. We need to make sure that for every article, the information is as reliable as possible for the reader. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality talk 23:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No sign of significant coverage that deal with Libcom itself; currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:32, 28 November 2018 (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.
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Libcom
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Libcom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page was nominated for AfD back in 2005 [1]. Not sure what happened to it but I'm nominating again for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 03:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The first two citations and first external link are simply to the site itself, the Media Bias/Fact check citation is from a website that solely analyzes site bias without taking into account anything else (and it's only one site, and there aren't any other significant mentions in reliable sources), the Daily Beast article does not focus on the site and is just a brief reference, and the second external link, to the site's Facebook page, does not count for notability either. A Google search shows no other mentions in reliable sources. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey I'm the creator of this page. I argue in favor of preserving this article on the following points:
- Libcom. org is a highly popular website with above average daily views, and a large amount of registered users.
- Libcom has been cited by the popular online news source The Daily Beast
- Libcom.org represents a ideological position that has been underrepresented within wikipedia articles, that of Anarchism
- Libcom.org has been expanded its audience outreach and is likely to quickly gain in popularity and visibility in the near future.
- There near identical articles on the same subject in non-English language wikis, most specifically Spanish.
- Libcom has received a review from popular media fact checking website
- Libcom is a significant source of far-left film, literary, and political criticism, making it an asset for discussion of left wing topics.
- Numerous wiki articles link to The Libcom website — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
S1d6arrett23 (
talk •
contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- The key here is reliable sources. Currently, there just don't seem to be enough of them to have a useful Wikipedia article; simply being popular doesn't help because if there aren't enough reliable sources, what will be cited to properly support the claims in this article? To deal with your other points:
- The Daily Beast is a reliable source, but the article is not about Libcom itself and is only a brief mention. Not much else can be found in other areas.
- The ideological position is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor a place for promoting any viewpoints.
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your personal prediction may not be correct. If this does become more visible in the future and more reliable sources talk about it, an article can be created then.
- Its presence in other wikis does not necessarily mean it should be here, as different projects have different standards. I noticed that the Spanish and Czech versions don't have many reliable sources (Spanish only has the site itself as an external link, the Czech version only mentions alexa.com).
- The Media Matters website reviews websites without regard to importance. Even if we count it, we only have one source and another brief mention, which may not be enough for an article.
- Whether this is used as a source in Wikipedia is different from whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. The former can occur without the latter. Not to mention that the obvious political bias may make it a problematic source.
- 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Some extra stuff I just noticed: While I noticed some more sources have been added, they still may not establish notability. The Brooklyn Rail article was partially written by Libcom itself, arguably making it a primary source. The journal articles are not about Libcom and merely use files hosted on Libcom as a citation. Notability is not inherited, and it would be unfeasible to have an article for every single source that has been cited in a journal. Also, notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination) was closed as delete. It appears that Libcom.org has been deleted as a Wikipedia article, but Libcom is still around, despite both of those articles being about the same thing. Frankly, this should perhaps be speedy deleted per G4 as a recreation of deleted material that doesn't address the reasons for deletion (not enough coverage in reliable sources). 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 07:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your counter-points to my defense of this article, but I continue to hold the position that this article should be maintained in present form because Libcom is a significant source of information from a left-wing perspective and its notability within the left wing community justifies its relevance as a subject. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
S1d6arrett23 (
talk •
contribs) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ S1d6arrett23: As I've said before, none of this has to do with whether Libcom can be cited in Wikipedia. Even if the article is deleted, Libcom can still be used as a source (if the source guidelines are followed, of course). As for notability within the left-wing community, while it might be popular, there still may not be enough reliable sources; a lot of the websites I've found discussing Libcom are things such as blogs and forums, or articles posted by the site itself, which generally aren't reliable. Or there are brief mentions or citations, such as the newly added sources, which don't give enough information to establish notability or write an article. We need to make sure that for every article, the information is as reliable as possible for the reader. 24.5.8.227 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality talk 23:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No sign of significant coverage that deal with Libcom itself; currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:32, 28 November 2018 (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.