Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NedaNet

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 Non-Admin closure, KEEP. The page has been moved and slightly re-purposed (the scope was widened to the whole Internet, rather then just NedaNet), making this AfD rather moot. See Talk:Role of Internet during 2009 Iranian election protests for more detail.
— Ω (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NedaNet

Recentism. Non-notable website put up by self-promotion master Eric Raymond to capitalize (fame) over the Neda meme. Damiens.rf 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - totally agree with nominator's comment about Raymond; however, plenty of reliable sources have ~~been gullible enough to have~~ mentioned the site. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't agree that everything returned by a google-news search can be automatically classified as a reliable source. Are NY Times blogs, for instance, reliable sources? Should Wikipedia be gullible enough to parrot (once more) the newest one day project by Raymond? --Damiens.rf 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just happens to be a Wikipedia page involving a current event. And this is even documented (unlike other articles on which I disagreed with Wikipedia policy about, concerning original research). ~GMH talk to me 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The article is sufficiently sourced. kencf0618 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's completely inaccurate. The article uses only self-published primary sources (4 links to esr.ibiblio.org, that belongs to Mr. Raymond), a NYTImes blog post that just quotes Mr. Raymond (again, a primary source) and an article on WallStreet Journal that gives no original information about the site that isn't attributed to Mr. Raymond Himself. Trivial mentions don't establishes notability. --Damiens.rf 04:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Damiens.rf 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all but one the sources cited in the article are BLOGS, the other is an opinion column. None of them meet criteria for reliable sources. As far as I can see, the only purpose of the article is to lead people to the Blog website and the Nedanet webpage - i.e. a link farm. The article is politically motivated.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate that the links to Nedanet and the blogs be removed immediately as they are not reliable sources?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a few sources, and it's a likely search term. Merging to 2009 Iranian election protests‎ or elsewhere might be a good idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To think more about the good faith of the users who vote, I suggest to take a look at the history of contributions of those who have voted to delete this article. It seems that they have nothing to do other than wiping out any signs of the opposition to the Iranian regime. It is very interesting. Isn't it?--Breathing Dead (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Sources are almost entirely blogs, the existence of this can be dealt with in a single line in a technology section of that along with use of twitter, et al. An entire article suggests falling victim to WP:RECENT, and is allowing WP to be used to promote this network, rather than acknowledge its existence --Saalstin (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but improve sourcing. It should be noted that reportorial blogs on the newspaper's own website are in fact considered reliable sources. These are not some random bloggers. Links to Raymond's website are to document his claims; the veracity of said claims is for the reader to decide. This discussion seems to be dominated by dislike for ESR, which I read as a form of WP:DONTLIKEIT. I'm not going to assume there is any political agenda here, but I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names in this AfD compared to most AfDs I've participated in. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! Surprise! You will find ALL these unfamiliar names in ALL AfDs related to any opposition to the regime of Iran. Why don't you check it out by yourself? It seems Ahmadinejad has some supporters all over the world, even in Wiki!--Breathing Dead (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Very viable topic, but marginal sourcing could cause unnecessary AfDs when it's a perfectly notable topic. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing shall, I think, improve over time. As it is, the covert nature of the subject is such that unavoidably self-referential citations are what we have to work with. In my opinion, the article makes it over the notability transom, albeit only just. kencf0618 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is sufficiently notable. Also, dislike of Eric Raymond is irrelevant here; it's not a reason to delete. Alethiophile, signing off...^{Comunicate at me} 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is easy here. Dislike of author or the content of article doesnt justify AfD.Fuzbaby (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (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.