Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been nominated before in 2005 but was kept, however, the reasons are unknown. Still no notability has been established. Majority if not all the sources are from the website itself, it has almost no reliable secondary sources. Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Way, way, way too many primary sources. No evidence of notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Has a number of secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A number of secondary sources." Are these sources that you have found elsewhere? Because there are only two sources on the article right now that source to any substance of the article and even then the sources seem to just make brief mention of them in passing, not being the subjects of the source themselves. Alexa and the british library do not speak to its notability, just the fact that they exist. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - current sourcing fails WP:GNG. Only minor mentions in a couple secondary sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally closed this as delete, but had not spotted one of the opinions was by a blocked sockpuppet so per requests have restored the article and relisted the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any sources —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing really makes it notable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Struck !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:AC/N#OccultZone and sockpuppetry Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG lacks reliable secondary sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A long-running and massive archive frequently cited in academic literature. Incredibly important to the community it serves. -- haminoon (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks secondary sources. Secondary sources present in article show only passing mentions of the site; the site is not the subject of these sourced articles. Plainly fails WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a long running and vast repository of anarchist history packed with academic material. fi (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being subjectively important isn't a reason to keep a page. There needs to be reliable sources with which to create an article. I'm not seeing that here, and it doesn't appear that any editor has found any. Will reconsider if any are presented. mikeman67 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (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.