Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House (second nomination)

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. -

Information Clearing House (second nomination)

Information Clearing House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

The subject fails

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

13 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete utter non-notability--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be like Newsmax, but less notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP -- this is a notable alternative news site, and this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time. There is no reason to delete it. --Wassermann 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, and just because something has slipped under the radar screen too long does not mean it gets a free pass Avi 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In this case, the article having been around for a while is actually an argument for deletion. All that time, and not a single, solitary source even hinting at notability. This one's an easy call.
  IronDuke 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It's sort of very POV, isn't it? I think that then would require that we have an article on a rightwing POV site, etc. etc....Gzuckier 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a non notable political website. Nick mallory 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers -Doright 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failure of
  WP:WEB criteria. There has been more than enough time for adding sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. The web site is the work of one--anonymous--person, reprinting random articles without caring overly for copyright or proper sourcing. Non notable per
  WP:WEB. --tickle me 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the deletion of this article is just another example of Wikipedia's censorship and delete-happy ways when it comes to alternative news and websites; we are an encyclopedia...if it exists we should include it, no questions asked.

P.S. -- have you all ever bothered to look in Category:News websites? A ton of those are as non-notable as this one, but there is no move to delete any of those. Nevertheless, hypocrisy and 'selective editing' abounds here on "Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Go On Deletion Rampages And Ravage The Project".... --Wassermann 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

assume good faith. Also, If you don't think those news websites belong on Wikipedia, you should nominate them for deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Wassermann,
  WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete big time per nom. There is not a single citation in the article other than from the website itself. <<-armon->> 23:46, 16 May 2007 (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.