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 NO CONSENSUS = KEEP. -Doc 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
First Deletion Reason – violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria, because the ICH is not the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” In addition, the ICH does not meet WP:WEB criterion of mention in “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations” (emphasis added). Reliable here is defined under WP:RS, which does not include blogs and other sources without editorial oversight. Nor does the article provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section, as is required under WP:WEB. In all, there are only 416 hits for the phrase (“Information Clearing House” and “World News Daily”) with blogs included. By comparison, the completely non-notable jackass “Morton Devonshire” gets 1170 hits, and I wouldn’t start an article on that joker if my life depended on it. Morton devonshire 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? 416 hits? Strange, i got 954 000 hits. Or 505 000 hits, if you try another way.--Striver 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the argument. It fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT criteria. If you don't think I've quoted the policy word for word, take a look yourself. Morton devonshire 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On Alexa, I get a rank of 12,075 - seems pretty popular. --Brianyoumans 04:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources range from major Us newspapers websites - national and regional, international newspapers websites like The Independant, Haaretz, Toronto Star. I live in Canada, I read international news from various sources and I can tell you ICH is what is says it is. Some right-wing extremists / neo-con fascists might not like that this site is one of the few news sources that brings an alternative to the war cheerleaders that dominate the US news space, but we can't expect them to be fair, as they support an illegal regime who stole two national elections. — Possible single purpose account: 70.55.61.212 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete - "Seems pretty popular" does not address the valid issues raised by the nom. The 954,000 number above is not selective for this site: it is a return on every mention of a clearing house of any kind, not the one referring to World News Daily. The 400+ hits is more accurate, and we don't need to promote another news source that does not meet WP:RS. Sandy 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandy above; conspiracy cruft. Tom HarrisonTalk 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stop the insanity --Tbeatty 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It describes itself as One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media. - it's just another conspiracist personal website. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another biased candidature. PizzaMargherita 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the criteria rather than your personal feelings. Morton devonshire 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been addressed by Striver: Paul Craig Roberts[2] writes for ICH. The source is also not less reliable than other sources. Your emphasising "reliable" in the policy excerpt is not what I call proof, and the burden is on you I'm afraid. The Google hits you report are basically made up. Also your serial and POV candidatures for deletion (which are also largely absurd and unsuccessful, and therefore time wasting) diminish the credibility of any others. [3][4][5]PizzaMargherita 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB criteria focuses on the mention of the site in question in reliable mainstream sources -- that's what establishes its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, not whether the site itself is reliable. Please look at WP:WEB for further clarification. Ad hominem is irrelevant. Morton devonshire 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and argument raised by Sandy. -- Samirधर्म 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, to Paul Craig Roberts, what more do you want? Google search for information clearing house gives the site in the two first hits and produces thousands of other links.— Possible single purpose account: 128.110.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep : The site is a lving legend , This is not a debate it is a political battle , Freedom of speech must be maintained and removing ICH would surely be followed by an attempt to remove LGF. The site is worthy of its place on Wikepedia amd this pathatic debate should not have even began. I wonder which little neocon came up with this bright idea to restrict information that they would rather others did not know. The site is up their with the best, its sources , contributers and reputation is second to none ... can we stop this nonsense http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/ — Possible single purpose account: 82.16.235.194 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: This site aggregates articles of a particular philosophical position and is extremely valuable. If you wish to question the validity of the articles, I assume you intend to treat Fox News in a similar fashion? I'm surprised and concerned that consideration would be given to it's removal - it's one of only three sources that I rely on daily for news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.111.164.74 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: I suspect the reason why some want the ICH entry deleted is because it provides an antidote to the deluge of propaganda we are fed every day, and therefore jars with their preferences. There are many original articles posted to ICH as first, or first equal, publisher and therefore it is worthy of its modest entry. If ICH goes then so should Alternet, Indymedia, Aljazeerah.info, and all the rest. Wikipedia has bigger problems than this issue, especially the tendentious character of many articles on controversial topics. On Google with this query, which excludes the site itself: -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House” Results 361 - 370 of about 911,000 for -site:informationclearinghouse.info “Information Clearing House”. (0.26 seconds) Morton Devonshire is a Jackass by his own words. — Possible single purpose account: 203.110.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
'Keep'. It is a far more reliable source of world information than any other I have found on the net. It is a true antidote for the corporate media which tends to publish mostly government approved propaganda. If the NYT or WP or Fox rate an entry (and they fail every criteria for puplishing "verified" information) then Information Clearing House must have its entry retained. The fact that Information Clearing House has an entry is not an endorsment of its publishing philosophy. It is worth pointing out to the geniuses at Wiki that "verifiability" implies a statement of truth not that the statement comes from a "reliable source" even reliabe sources have been known to mislead. Learn your Latin. I would also point out that the reasons given for deletion are bogus. Steve Lane 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Steve Lane — Possible single purpose account: Steve Lane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep: Who needs YOUR web rules? The original anarchy of the internet is the best illustration of a free market in action. Markets are inevitably self-organizing to the best interest of participants, provided state control and corporate-backed state regulation/manipulation don't interfere (Wikipedia is a prime example). Those who ask that ICH or any other web page conform to the standard seek just such control and manipulation. Freedom is present when one is free to say no. The free market will determine if ICH is relevant, not some geek-speak defined standard. Apparently, some among us can handle "free-markets", just not ones that involve the free exchange of ideas. Chalk it up another effort by the stato-cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs)
KEEP: Who made you the censors of what any one of us reads? ICH provides a valuable source of information that is not widely available thru the mainstream media. I for one would much rather receive my daily news summary from ICH than from MSNBC, FOX, or any of the other biased media sources. Whether or not you agree with the content or the opinions of the contributors, ICH has the right under the constitution of this country to express their opinions and those of their contributors. This is what its all about!!! Thanks, Larry Hearold (lhearold@micro-consultants.com). — Possible single purpose account: 151.203.197.188 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete. This site is not sufficiently notable, and the article lacks independent, reliable sources. --Aude (talkcontribs) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: We live in a highly polarized world where commercial media is largely no longer used to educate and report, but instead targeted to form opinion and guide the reader toward the desired result. Corporate media has uncritically helped the current US government spread misinformation about Iraq in order to get the desired result of war backed by the American people. Corporate Media is largely responsible for misleading the populance as well as lawmakers, and therefore the statement “reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,... television documentaries,...” is an oxymoron in itself. Corporate Media is the modern State Propaganda tool. ICH uses news sources that include foreign media as well as providing original editorial content. It is a legitimate form of media and should therefore be kept. Jared Kenwell (jkenwell@telus.net) — Possible single purpose account: 198.166.16.87 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete. Not verifiably notable; lacks credible references. (Closing admin: Please watch for socks.) -AED 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see why ICH shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to translate the original complaint into simple English for me. Is it a question of whether ICH presents "reliable" or "verifiable" information? I don't read the mainstream press or watch TV news because I don't trust the mass media to give me an honest report of what's going on in the world. Instead I look through the offerings at ICH and several other sites each day and click on the links that interest me. Some are news items and some are opinion pieces. IMO, the news articles often have an implied pov, while most opinion pieces include factual information to support their views. I'm old enough to distinguish between fact and opinion, and between one person's alleged facts and those which can be substantiated. What I'm saying is that I feel ICH serves a valuable service to the community and I don't automatically agree with everything I see there. Manjusri053 05:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Manjusri053 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
EXCUSE ME! Someone around here is being dishonest, saying that my account is "single purpose" and I'm a new participant who's "made little or no other contributions outside this topic." I opened this accoount last November after I forgot my previous account name, and anyone can see that I participated in the editing or discussion of other pages prior to this one. I would appreciate it if the person who slandered me this way would remove their disparaging notations. Thank you. Manjusri053 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag doesn't say you are new. It says you have made little or no contributions outside this topic. You have 12 edits in 10 months. That is "little or no contributions." There is no slander and there is nothing wrong with having low edit counts. Just that for assessing consensus of the community, closing admins can discount non-established users when determining consensus. --Tbeatty 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Manjusri053. The template is ill-conceived and is anyway incorrectly used in many occasions in this page. My understanding is that SPA means that the account has been created on purpose in order to vote for this AfD, i.e. the template is meant to warn that somebody might be creating SPAs specifically to "vote" more than once in this article, which is clearly not the case in many cases. I trust the judgment of the closing admin who will unfortunately have to check each claimed SPA. PizzaMargherita 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the description already offers a reasonable disclaimer; at this point, it should be for the reader to decide what is "reliable." To censor this is to play politics and that would make Wikipedia, itself, unreliable. 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Taliot — Possible single purpose account: Taliot (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
Keep Information Clearing House is a better source of information than most of the 'mainstream' drivel that is fed to us a news. I don't even agree with everything I read on it and I often end up doing a wider search on topics which I find particularly interesting. I am not surprised that someone out there is trying to get it kicked off wikipedia but I don't think it is wikipedia's role to act as a censor every time someone reads something they disagree with.Puffinbirds 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Puffinbirds (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep: As mentioned before "reliability" is not guaranteed ... even by NYT (remember Judith Miller's story about WMD in Iraq!). This article fits perfectly well in the context of alternate media. By definition, alternate media does not aim for popularity like the mainstream media which rely on advertisement revenue and have to be "popular". IMHO, this site provides one type of viewpoint and I find it valuable. The article seems to be neutral in mentioning that it has leftist slant. So visitors have been warned about the orientation. Viplav 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Viplav (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep: Information Clearing house serves the twin functions of publishing articles by such notables as Robert Fisk, and preserving otherwise short-lived (rotated out) news items from other news sources. Its also notable for presenting views froma wide range of different countries. Its clearly a notable site. As others have already said, one wonders whether the RFD is actually about notability or is in fact about the content. Keep political deletion of opposing viewpoints out of Wikipedia. --Nantonos 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) contribs[reply]
1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site.
1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.
And yet this page is allowed? The cheek!
Check out the list of friends in connection to this "discussion".
Regards the deletion process
Abuse of deletion process
...
XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.
The article on ICH is a concise summary of the site.
According to alexa, the site has about 1/10th to 1/20th the reach of a major "left leaning" paper like The Guardian. ICH is however more popular than the notable climate site Realclimate and (interestingly) about 1/3rd as popular as The Whitehouse. It has a similar reachtoZnet a website of comparable political orientation. Google indicates that 7,340 sites link to ICH, although Amazon.com suggests 4165
A search at Amazon.com reveals that 40 recent books make reference to ICH, suggesting that it serves as a public searchable archive for articles, pictures and pdf files. This fact suggests it is a noteworthy site, at least for authors of popular history or opinion. Unlike Realclimate, which has been noticed by scholarly sources such as Nature ICH has not had similar recognition and is generally (like wikipedia) a tertiary source.
And yes, I may be a user who has made little or no other contributions outside this topic... I'm not white-anting the site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.7.222 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP This is a useful source of mainstream news articles and leftist comment that gives a useful slant not found elsewhere - helps me keep an open mind on the big events that governments and big media spin in their own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 80.4.156.2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP The ICH website has been destroyed numerous times by politically motivated crackers full of hate. This attack on ICH in wikipedia is probably just one more part of the actions targetting such sites and people who run them and contribute to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 130.233.24.165 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP: What ostensibly validates existence at Wikipedia is "reliable published works" in newspapers, etc. There is an article in today's ICH, http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?optionfiltered=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=135
which explores the removal of a story from the NYT website, available in the UK, as it is in the U.S. The story is removed only to UK readers. In addition, "The Paper of Record" was not even delivered to the UK, yet the story that was blocked was printed by other papers that depend on "reliable published works." The NYT continues to sully its supposed reputation by this blatant censorship. Why on earth would Wikipedia want to follow that path and call it 'upstanding'? Is ICH to be censored because they, somehow, do not follow the shameful and unreliable paths that are taken by too many other "reliable published works"? This self-serving phrase is like a well-known other: "All the News That's Fit to Print." Which is to say, neither of these phrases are accurate or truthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 24.136.245.160 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
KEEP It strikes me as unreal that this is even considered for deletion. Ryz 10:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just more conspiracy theory cruftiness.--MONGO 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ICH has an unbiased mechanism for posting comments. And mis-representations which rarely happen are pointed out in the comments by the huge audience it has. ICH actively informs and retracts any misrepresentations if they occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.127.6 (talk • contribs)
Author of "Is this a Joke" , 203.164.7.222: I have made changes to the article in question.
The initial complaint featured the issues notablility and reliability. I really don't see how notability can be a problem.
"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." WP:WEB
I think the 40 citations in books distributed by Amazon covers that.
Yes it links to "conspiracy theory cruftiness" administrator MONGO, but many articles are sourced from the mainstream press. Presumably, without reading, these books are all crufty by association. Just because a theory/opinion is fringe or not mainstream does not defacto make it wrong - only unpleasant, disturbing or distasteful... and maybe later, wrong. It took a long time to accept the loony idea of continental drift. If ICH is considered an unreliable third source what hope wikipedia? See also the talk page for the ICH entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 203.164.8.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia for sites that are, in my opinion, far less worthy than ICH; examples: Suprnova.org and The Register. If ICH's page should go for the reasons initially claimed then plenty more should too. Further, I find it curious that critics of ICH want to have the page removed. I note that people who don't like The Register (and there's a lot of them) are not calling for the deletion of El Reg's (?) page; rather they call for the page to be edited to have a critical rather than neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Dr algorythm (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep
At the very least ICH will have significant historical value. ICH is one of my most trusted sources of information. It is more reliable than the Main Stream Media at this time, therefore if it is removed, then everything from Fox News (Faux News) and the networks should be eliminated as well. Mark Rehl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs)
Keep
I am a retired university professor, and my daily sources of national and international news are NPR, the International Herald Tribune, ICH and Truthout (an online source of articles, similar to ICH). Although ICH occasionally has links to liberal polemics (which I ignore), its great value to me is found in news stories and analyses of world events from a wide variety of journalistic sources such as AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Guardian, Asia Times, etc. Joseph Martos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephmartos (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Josephmartos (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep
ICH is much more reliable and better news source then FOX News, which is listed on Wikipedia, so if you are not deleting FOX then you must keep ICH. Adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 129.97.109.33 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete
We should not be discussing the merits of ICH per se, but the merits of the Wikipedia Article. The wikipedia article is far from neutral, listing only the merits of ICH, and none of the criticism. The Wikipedia article on ICH is also in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" with an overly extensive list of media links at the end of the article. Sort of like a "hah see, these are our sources, we are legit."12.108.61.66 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— 12.108.61.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep
If there's an NPOV problem with the article it can be hashed out in discussions and fixed. I fail to see why ICH should be deleted altogether - sounds a little fishy... AND - is wikipedia going to get rid of all the websites that are less known than ICH? GNN.tv has a page, stormfront.org has a page, infowars.com has a page, alternet.org has a page.. etc. etc. Persona o 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Persona o (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Comment Anon IP adress removed the SPA tag, resigned the comment as anon IP and then User:Persona o resigned it again as Persona o. Not sure why. Readding the SPA tag.
Keep
As a journalist, I use ICH almost every day to find interesting, provocative and relevant facts, information and perspectives. All readers of Wikipedia should have the opportunity to learn about ICH. I do not agree with every article that ICH publishes, but I can still recognize that it is a really important information service. Keeping a Wikipedia article about ICH does not introduce "politics" into Wikipedia -- but deleting an article about ICH certainly would. Pmontague 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pmontague (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep - In my reading, ICH meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability, certainly as much as or more so than many main stream media outlets. Is the political slant of ICH the real issue for those wanting deletion? I note that Wikipedia articles exist for NewsMax and WorldNetDaily which are NOT proposed for deletion (nor should they be). Therefore the attempt to delete the article on ICH may be a politically motivated misuse of the deletion process. --Nodal Plane 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Nodal Plane (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell.
And a revolutionary act needs to be into Wikipedia. Stop the censure by criminal neo cons
--Neymare 17:56, 31 August 2006 (From France)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 192.44.63.161 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Wikipedia is no place for a revolution, nor (I realize now) is it a place for deleting viewpoints we don't agree with. I retract my previous opinion of delete in favor of Keep, but edit to better reflect the neutrality standards of Wikipedia12.108.61.66 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 12.108.61.66 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Delete - per nom. Also note the following entry on the website: "Neocons move against Information Clearing House.: Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House. Please provide your views." which links to this page. Nice, eh? Crockspot 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have provided references for orignial articles created by multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own article) for this specific site. This should render void all above claims of non-notability.--Striver 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's not what the nomination is about. It's about the notability of the site, not people mentioned on the site. Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOTMorton devonshire 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your interpretation, but in either case, i have added external sites linking to it, like Counterpunch and CSM.--Striver 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that. Didn't stumble on any links on my google search. --Striver 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeida isn't a reliable source for notability. My own opnion (which is about as valuable as Wikipedia's) is that they would fail the objective notability test as I don't see many awards or reviews of their authored works that are relevant to ICH. Whether they would survive an AfD popularity test is a different quesiton. As you see here, we have a lot of motivated one time accounts. For example, Roberts is notable in his own right but his sole contributions to ICH do not necessarily make them notable (ICH carrying articles that are published elsewhere does not make ICH notable). --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Science MonitorCounterPunch are very notable in themselves, they have nothing to do with wikipedia. And George Galloway, Ray McGovern and John Pilger also very notable on their own. --Striver 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Christian Science Monitor hyperlink mentioned, and it says nothing about ICH. Morton devonshire 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. --Striver 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I encourage everyone to have a look. Morton devonshire 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spot it either. There is a link to an article on ICH but no actual information about the site. Is the link what we should consider a "non-trivial published work" about the site? The site does not appear to be the subject of the article at all. WP:WEBexplicitly says trivial coverage such as reporting the internet address do no impart notability. Weregerbil 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to reflect that. --Striver 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded trivial coverage still doesn't bring it towards WP:WEB. Weregerbil 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if i also could pretend that it was the single claim of notability the article makes. In any case WP:WEB is just a guidline.--Striver 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to pretend anything. Let's discuss it directly without pretending! Does the article pass WP:WEB?Weregerbil 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that it does not in the current form, but it irrelevant to the afd, since it is a mere guidling, intended to help, and not a wikipedia policy. A wikipedia policy would for example be Notability, and this site hosts original material from multiple Notable persons. And that is enough in my view, and the view of the people voting "keep" --Striver 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are technically called meatpuppets. But it is pretty amazing. I think half of them think we are voting to remove ICH from the Web. --Tbeatty 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serious editorial content. Looks fine to me. Yakuman 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New user
Keep - There is no coherent case against the retention of ICH in Wikipedia. The charges contained in the first entry above and several supporting entries are without any credible foundation in fact. The supporting arguments are spurious for they rely entirely on the unsound presuppositions contained in the original indictment - ie. the first entry. On its face, ICH meets the criteria cited in the original charge -WP:WEB, WP:NOT and WP:RS. This case should be closed as it has no merit, whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by alchemistoxford (talk • contribs)
Keep - The site is non-trivial and deserves a page. Nunquam Dormio 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, and the nomination seems motivated by political disagreement with its content. If that were a valid criteria for deletion, most of Wikipedia would cease to exist. Redxiv 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some external conspiracy theory sites and opinion pieces appear to have links to the site but a link doesn't constitute being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent published works. Weregerbil 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if the outcome of this discussion is keep, this article needs a complete overhall - it now reads like an advertisement at best. GabrielF 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google counts 7,340 sites above the PR 3 threshold linking to ICH. Among the first 200 entries I checked cursorily there wasn't a single one that struck me as noteworthy, just minor blogs and conspiracy/opinion sites. The nom is correct about ICH not meeting WP:WEBs requirements. ICH is a "one man effort" indeed and needs more time to get noteworthy. btw: ICH means "I" and "ego" in German... :-) --tickleme 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another notable original writer added: Wayne Madsen--Striver 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provides valuable perspective on the Far Right. StaticElectric 20:27, 2 September 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.
Comment I have provided references for orignial articles created by multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own article) for this specific site. This should render void all above claims of non-notability.--Striver 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
