Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabble

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 of the debate was KEEP, although there is clearly laundry lying around this AfD. -Splash^talk 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble

Not appropriate for the wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)

First delete vote— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk • contribs)
Keep The site looks legit, and I make certain assumptions when an AfD is submitted sans signature. --djrobgordon 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. --InShaneee 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Umm.. I am Trevor May, someone is posing as me, how special. This article should definatly not be deleted! --Canadaka 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) Stop impersonating me, 2) Stop trying to sabotage my site, 3) Sorry guys for forgetting to sign. TrevorMay 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an imposter on the web, arrest that log in! http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=262511#262511 --The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)
Comment Perhaps the AfD was in good faith. I could be convinced to change my vote if there was a specific reason listed for the nomination. --djrobgordon 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's a well-known website in Canada. It publishes articles from well-known left-wing activists. Fagstein 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cite your sources. Last I looked rabble didn't have any original articles, they are all "re-prints" which is specifically excluded in WP:WEB ? Oh but you knew that Mr. I have more edits then you. Right? JackassCKA 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this site. JackassCKA 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This user has a total of five contributions to two apparently related AfDs (see Bearcat's comment below). Fagstein 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fagstein. Ardenn 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's possible that somebody's being impersonated here, regardless of which user is actually Trevor May this is clearly a revenge nomination because of the nominater's personal interest in the Canadaka.net AFD, where the nominating user voted to keep. I'd love to hear a remotely intelligible rationale for the idea that canadaka.net is more notable than Rabble (which, after all, has Judy Rebick, Rick Salutin, Linda McQuaig and Naomi Klein associated with it.) Keep and read WP:POINT. Bearcat 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It has probably become the most influential media outlet of any description among English Canada's activist lefties. Samaritan 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been in the news quite a few times.Habsfannova 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 192.197.82.153 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant site for left-leaning news, as noted above Judy Rebick, Rick Salutin, Linda McQuaig and Naomi Klein are all associated with it. Wiederaufbau 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are occasional original articles on rabble, and the forum itself is one of the larger Canadian-based ones, with >10,000 users. Ianking 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Samaritan and Bearcat above. I believe this Afd is done in bad faith. --Cyberboomer 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:WEB with some press coverage. Large userbase too. Potential bad faith nomination. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:32, 7 March 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.