Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LewRockwell.com

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 Keep (non-admin closure) as there were no !votes to delete; possible merge pending talkpage consensus. Skomorokh 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LewRockwell.com

LewRockwell.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A largely self-sourced article on Lew Rockwell's website. Rockwell is notable, is his site independently notable? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article notes that the page "disclaims" it is no longer associated with Lew Rockwell - it is not his site, (may make it less notable). BananaFiend (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks, Guy, but there is plenty of independent notability. I added two reliable sources just now. To a degree a bit of self-pub would be allowed to permit a brief paragraph on LRC's positions, and that paragraph is currently too long, but aside from that the contributors list alone is a showcase of notables. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Lew Rockwell. Even if the site doesn't necessarily represent his positions all the time he's still inextricably tied in to the site and as I understand it he does a lot of editorial and writing work for it. The article needs some work but there is good stuff in there--I would hate to see someones efforts disappear. Iamblessed (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, website is independently notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  Why do you say so? It might be, but it's better to provide evidence instead of simply asserting it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This Google text string search for "lewrockwell.com" yields about a quarter of a million hits. Thousands of these represent indications of notability. It is likely the most noted and widely read libertarian website on earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. These things aren't always obvious to those of us who don't live in the political world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge i see no indications for notability in the article, and while there may be alot of Google hits, i found that most of these where either links or blogs (and a large combo of those). Where is the independent coverage of it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Rockwell and his web site are effectively the same topic. I can't think of anything you could say about LewRockwell.com that would not be relevant to the article about Lew Rockwell. NCdave (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. LewRockwell.com is a long established site which publishes original content six days a week. It's not a one-man operation. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. LRC was built by Lew Rockwell, but there are multiple individuals who assist in editorial matters and post content independently. LRC is not merely a germane detail in discussions of Rockwell, but rather an independently notable entity which merits independent coverage. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lew Rockwell - there just isn't enough meaningful content to warrant two separate articles at present. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, article size is of lesser relevancy when it comes to this level of notability. You ought to expand it rather than remergeing. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. He is the editor in chief and his name is on the website, but it isn't his blog or anything -- it's a widely cited (for good or ill) publisher of primarily libertarian though, and though sifting through sources to find the stuff about the site is tricky with all the mere citations of stuff on the site, it's possible. According to America's Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power by Richard Viguerie and David Franke, it had higher readership than the National Review Online. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to note that there have been no delete comments (other than the nom's) and a merge discussion would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. I don't think AfD is the place for this discussion. May I suggest WP:SNOW? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --RayBirks (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• merge to Lew Rockwell as suggested. Mcmullen writes (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (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.