Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin's Tomb (blog)

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, consensus was reached among established editors. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin's Tomb (blog)

Lenin's Tomb (blog) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

A blog. Sources: the blog. I see no evidence this passes WP:WEB, and no evidence it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely fails WP:WEB. It doesn't even have its own domain, and uses blogspot. Jayden54 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, once again, a Blogspot blog probably does not pass WP:WEB. Lo and behold, I see no WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - important meeting point for the British left, with people like Michael Rosen, Ian Birchall and others posting. The idea of 'blogs' being de facto not worth comment is insane - they are important, to those who use them, and the media in general - as seen with their breaking of stories surrounding Craig Murray and others. User:Steffaction— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
• Delete, unless notability established through WP:RS. Technorati rank of 5,689[1].--Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, - completely fails WP:WEB. Attempts at editing for neutrality met by vandalism, threats and meatpuppeting.Lenin's Tomb (blog) is kept alive as a political act, not out of concern for encyclopaedic interest Meaders 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I note that user meaders is still making edits (against consensus) on the article.Felix-felix 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment No "consensus". Please keep this sort of distraction for the main article discussion pages. I have reinstated the warnings you deleted on your talk pages. Thank you. Meaders 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement for unnotable political blog.--OinkOink 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has been repeatedly cited in UK news sources. Private Eye magazine flagged up the coverage of Hurricane Katrine for one of its lead stories. 01:08, 27 December 2006— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
• Keep. The blog has been cited in The Guardian, Private Eye, The Morning Star & Socialist Worker. It broke the story that Innovative Emergency Management had attempted to cover up its involvement in Katrina emergency relief - this story was subsequently covered in Private Eye. Therefore qualifies for notability: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Worth noting that the user 'Meaders', who complains of vandalism, is himself the habitual vandal of this page according to the discussion page. Socialist Worker covered the blog when it leaked documents protected by the Official Secrets Act relating to Craig Murray's allegations that the government had received information from the Uzbek government obtained through torture. Neither story is by any means trival, both sources are independent of the site itself, and both are reliable publications disseminated through UK newsagents and sellers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.50.7 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Keep As above-important and oft cited blog, referenced in many other wikipedia articles. User 'Meaders' is a habitual vandal of the page,with a particular axe to grind-as a quick look at his contribution history may reveal. The blog itself may be on blogspot-but a cursory glance will show how busy it is with 3-4 posts daily, often attracting comments in numbers of up to 3 figures.Felix-felix 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless those claiming that there are reliable sources about this add them to the article - I couldn't find any myself. We should improve our articles about Lenin's Tomb and Lenin's Tomb before spending any time on this. DVD+ R/W 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's any help, here are the citations on Socialist Worker: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9777; http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8055 The others are in print editions. Private Eye, 16th September 2005, Page 3. The Guardian, 5th November 2005, Page 36. Morning Star, 8th September 2006, front page.— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

Surely cleanup issues should be raised in the talk page and not be forced at gunpoint on AfD? I'll add the citations above now.Felix-felix 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All but the Morning Star ione in and references all fixed.Felix-felix 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. We have several articles about blogs on blogspot (e.g.: Fafblog, Echidne of the Snakes), so that in itself is no reason for deletion. Skarioffszky 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment One of which is now deleted; the other looking likely to be so.Meaders 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment You mean because you've just nominated it!Felix-felix 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, I mean because it, like Lenin's Tomb (blog) is an advert.Meaders 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that why you're so keen on editing the Lenin's Tomb article then? And, I notice that you nominated both of the above articles, btw.Felix-felix 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete. notability not established. `'mikka 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable blog. Mummifieddictatormausoleumcruft. --Folantin 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has been cited in major media. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment Also award winning and nominated, The Willesend Herard's Golden Willy(!) award twice [2] , and nominated for the guardian's backbencher award. Dunno if either of those count as notable, but if they do, then it passes 2 seperate criteria of WP:WEBFelix-felix 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment, I notice that Meaders acts only to push point of view and disrupt the article Lenin's Tomb (blog), also he/she lies about edits (calling most reverts of vandalism) and makes threats of banning to in attempts to silence opposition. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no RS to support notability, minimal assertion of notability, no non-trivial mentions. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:39, 1 January 2007 (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.