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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Vienna (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable Jason from nyc (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason's the blog's author's wikipedia page was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward S. May. Both author and his works are not notable and fail WP:GNG guidelines. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable Islamophobic blog that has received significant mainstream media coverage[1]. The blog is notable independent of the May guy, it is written by other people than May (e.g. Fjordman). JonFlaune (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any evidence of these "significant mainstream media coverage" - not in the article, and not in a Google search for "Gates of Vienna" + blog. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the author's article was up for deletion, I tried very, very hard to find sources by searching both on him and on his blog. There simply isn't significant coverage out there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been regular media coverage on this blog in Norway for a year, obviously related to it being a primary influence on Anders Behring Breivik. [2] [3] [4]. If the blog isn't independently notable, then I suggest a redirect to 2011 Norway attacks. JonFlaune (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The media coverage has been persistent but trivial. Redirects generally don't help a reader unless the redirected topic is discussed in the article; perhaps you could propose language that would discuss these blogs in the Breivik article? (Even so, not sure it would be good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - let's not act as publicity agents for obscure websites Why would Wikipedia want to publicise such sites? I do no think it does. All the policy stuff I have read suggests that Wikipedia is not a suitable place to publicise/advertise non-notable people/businesses/products. The website is mentioned in some newspaper articles about a mad person who murdered lots of young people. Perhaps if the mad person had used lavatory paper made by Mr May that he bought over the internet, and the newspaper article had mentioned that, we should have an article May's lavatory paper? I do not think so. This kind of rubbish is mentioned in passing by newspaper articles to pad them out. Anders Breivik's spider web of hate, in The Guardian, 7 Sept 2011, is an example of that. The Guardian is not an entirely reliable source - they have a tendency to invent 'facts' to make stories more sensational.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If toilet paper were mentioned repeatedly as a factor in the rampage (perhaps Breivik thought it was too rough), then we could deal with it at that point. Others, such as SPLC have made their opinions known already. Ufwuct (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this obscure website is only notable in connection with Breivik, then it is not really notable. Breivik and his actions are notable. Any mention of this website that Wikipedia needs to have can be made in articles about Breivik and his actions.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG  JoeGazz84  ♦  19:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gates of Vienna guest-hosts some writings by other "notable" writers such as Fjordman and central to the anti-islamization community (or whatever you prefer to call it). Little Green Footballs notes Ned May (and Spencer and Geller) as his primary reason for (what appears to be) a nearly 180 degree change in his writings.[5] Continued coverage as related to Breivik as well. Ufwuct (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - This blog made history last year. The Scythian 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the central websites of the Counterjihad movement. Has published many different writers, including Fjordman and Paul Weston. Involved in many conferences (especially publishing report of those conferncces). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge into 2011 Norway attacks as it's only notable in that context. // Liftarn (talk)
• Keep. There has been so much coverage and discussion about this website in mainstream media that notability seem clearly evidenced. __meco (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (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.