522:
un-notable that merging it away and possibly splitting it off later is worth the investment in time. It's not as if there's a shortage of
Knowledge (XXG) articles that could be worked on instead. Guy, at least, offered a metric for his claim of non-notability, though I can't decode it, but Yukichigai picked up on his animus against the site's content instead. Alf photoman gave a reason for considering the subject non-notable (that I debunked),Hut 8.5 offered his opinion that the content should be buried in the Horowitz aricle (already pushing 30k)...and we end up with 70.51.231.96's "not influential or that notable" opinion. My understanding is that this is a debate, not a vote. If there's opposition you need to come armed with more than unsupported opinion.
654:"Discover the Network" was the initial name of DTN, before Horowitz renamed it. To repeat, "Discover the Network"AND"David Horowitz" returns 27,800, not 700. Most "discover the network"(only) hits do not refer ro DTN, but Google apparently rates it the most notable meaning of the phrase because 9 of the first ten links are to references to DTN. Thanks for at least attempting a metric, tho. I don't think DTN is all that notable, but I don't think it's all that non-notable either, and it satisfies the technical definition of notable ("subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"). So why delete it? Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia.
425:. If someone were to write up a description of that java ap on DTN (it would be really cool to have something like that as a view of the links between Knowledge (XXG) articles!) or otherwise describe DTN at length it would unbalance the DHFC article and should be spun off. But I, e.g., am not yet enough of a Wikipedian to know how to do that step, so that I am not convinced it isn't better to leave the framework of nodes,
488:-- I'm not clear if he's referring to more than just the hyperlinks embedded in the text -- and if true one mostly shouldn't use DTN as a source. I've done a little work on sections of the Horowitz article written by individuals with an anti-H POV and one of the things I found most obnoxious was contributors who cited MediaMatters or somesuch for what Horowitz said when the original text is readily available.
466:
cites than this article is. So it looks like there are plenty of tin foil hats to go around. However, I think all of these articles are useful. In fact, I think they should be kept so that when they're used as sources for articles, (which is a far bigger problem IMHO due to their advocacy POVs) we at
429:
but stubs, in place.... But that's not the discussion that started here. The proposal to delete and initial comments were couched in terms dismissive of the CONTENT of the site ("vast left-wing conspiracy", "fringe", "tin-foil hats", etc.) that invited the conclusion that the proposal was partisan. I
307:
doesn't have to be favorable. All the accusations of guilt-by-association count. ("Web-specific content is notable if...The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.") And, no it's not all FrontPageMag reprints. Looking
358:
I actually don't have a VERY strong feeling that DTN needs to be a separate article. Probably it does. Only Will Bebeck seems to realize that deleting the article just means folding the material into the
Horowitz article, which is long enough already. What I do have a strong feeling about is this
298:
was redlinked because it was misspelled, not because it was not notable. This article is a stub and has an anti-Horowitz POV currently, but keep it for others to work on. Incidentally, it doesn't need renaming, since
Horowitz renamed it from Network to Networks some time back (it seems both names
337:
Alexa ranks mean more visited, right? As in, a rank of 1 should mean the website is the #1 most visited site on the
Internet? That Knowledge (XXG)'s is generally around 10 at the moment? That there are about 306,000 websites more commonly visited than the subject of this article? And that
521:
Who Brant?... My own view is that even non-reliable sources can be useful as long as they don't agree. They do a lot of the spadework and the disagreements are instructive. But that's beside the point, here. The AfD poll shouldn't be about whether DTN is reliable, but about whether DTN is so
602:
to David
Horowitz or his foundation or FrontPageMag.com or one of the many already existing articles on him and his projects. This project is not influential or that notable, thus it is hard to justify its inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) as a standalone article.
354:
Not a pain, at all. I followed Jersey Devil's link and didn't read closely enough. I stand corrected, and am happy to have my misunderstanding corrected. Nonetheless, if JD is right that DTN's traffic is sufficient, adding DTNs' has to make the case
615:
or possibly merge into a section on the
Frontpagemag article. This should be removed due to lack of notability. A Google search for ("Discover the Networks" "David Horowitz") returned 700 hits, which is close to zero in the Google universe.
625:
Change it to "Discover the
Network" and you get another 27,800. Dropping "David" adds another 1,000. Drop "Horowitz" and you get 73,000 for "Discover the Networks" and another 124,000 for "Discover the Network". Is this still zero?
467:
least have the ability to wikilink them for full disclosure. One other thing, regarding Will's observation that it's an archive of FP articles. I don't think that's entirely correct. DTN is a distinct project of the
402:
Thanks for the clarification. Both
Photoman and Guy had mentioned the Horowitz article, so I assumed you were on the same page. Actually, if you were going to merge it anywhere, I would think the root article is
117:
A right-wing website which exists, apparently, to expose the "vast left-wing conspiracy". No significant independent sources cited, only one hit on Google News (a blog), two hits on
Factiva, both unrelated.
485:
even though it doesn't have its own article? Anyway... Horowitz claims about DTN that "he sources for the facts entered and the interpretations based on them have been made as transparent as possible"
443:
I don't think the afd or some of the votes were made in bad faith, however it does appear that some are allowing their bias to cloud their judgement somewhat. DTN is the exact ideological opposite of
375:
says more about where you are than
Horowitz. So WHY are we discussing deleting this article? If someone searches for info on DTN do we really want them to wade through the Horowitz article?
261:
The fact that the founder is notable means we can have an article on him. Which we do. You could even justify a redirect from this title to that article. What about this group, though?
110:
363:
is required to justify an article on Knowledge (XXG) but it's obvious that there are a LOT of articles on Knowledge (XXG) on subjects with a lot less
83:
78:
303:, more used than the other two, but still with only about a quarter of DTN's combined Alexa. By the way, the non-trivial coverage of DTN required by
87:
70:
240:
196:
and so on does not make it likely that I could change my mind. And please keep the tin-hat, I prefer mine made from a National Enquirer page
421:
too, while you're at it. With redirects, of course. But this is because of the paucity of material in Knowledge (XXG), not because of
507:-more of pragmatic argument than an idealistic one. In any case, I think they should all be kept according the the philosophy behind
17:
359:
poll, which seems animated by an animus against the content of the site rather than it's notability. I don't know exactly how much
407:, which could use the material. Organizationally FrontPageMag and DTN are on the same level - see the "Ongoing Programs" list at
299:
work as urls). And I notice that adds ANOTHER 1,563k to the Alexa. And here's another left near counterpart with a Wiki entry,
471:
and appears to have a lot of additional content, however it isn't mentioned in that article at the moment and it should be.
468:
418:
414:
404:
295:
242:
which while not spectacular I believe is good enough for mention on this encyclopedia. Non-trivial coverage of website at
696:
36:
645:"Discover the Network" is a generic phrase (without the -s) so is "David" and "Horowitz" if they stand by themselves
681:
661:
649:
630:
620:
607:
594:
581:
561:
526:
516:
492:
476:
438:
397:
379:
346:
323:
274:
252:
227:
200:
180:
131:
52:
459:
74:
246:
552:) It appears mostly to be an archive of Front Page articles. It does not appear to be notable in its own right. -
695:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
188:, if it is supported by an organization so notable that it is red-linked there can't be much. Problems with
158:
557:
393:
66:
58:
604:
309:
248:. Article should be renamed "Discover the Network" however to reflect the correct name of the site.--
170:
508:
372:
316:
145:
286:
Justified for Knowledge (XXG) NPOV in any case. Following Jersey Devil's link I see the Alexa of
486:
175:
451:
384:
I wouldn't suggest merging the material to the Horowitz article. I do suggest merging it with
300:
249:
220:
197:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
578:
553:
549:
410:
389:
385:
655:
570:
431:
343:
165:
153:
49:
311:. I dunno what proportion came from Horowitz's other enterprises -- do you? If you claim
658:
627:
574:
523:
489:
435:
376:
320:
236:
209:
426:
422:
368:
364:
360:
312:
304:
193:
189:
141:
269:
263:
126:
120:
646:
617:
447:
291:
215:
149:
104:
678:
444:
287:
590:
512:
472:
339:
319:, be more specific. Sounds to me like "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated".
243:
503:
of them are good sources, but in real-world WP you will find editors who
482:
455:
371:
has mostly to do with how you cite the site, right? And accusing it of
569:. One of several David Horowitz web projects, doesn't seem to meet
212:, already mentions the website, and that's about all we need on it.
499:(Yeah Brant is a whole other issue) Just to clarify, I don't think
148:. On a related note, participants in this AfD will receive a free
409:]. It might be justified to reconsider the decision not to delete
573:
in its own right, and anything worth covering can be done in the
689:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
144:
in oh so many ways. As a bonus it skirts dangerously close to
388:. I'm sorry I wasn't clear before. I'll annotate my comment. -
462:
thesis. It also doesn't appear that they're supported by any
100:
96:
92:
308:
at Google and backing out a reference I found, e.g.,
208:
per nom as non-notable. The article on the creator,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
699:). No further edits should be made to this page.
331:- I hate to be a pain, but you do realize that
8:
589:per Andyvphil -he makes a very good case.
481:Hmm... didn't you just "wikilink" to
239:), site has an alexa ranking of 306K
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
434:... but it's not non-rebuttable.
458:-all sites which operate on the
338:rankings are not additive? --
294:only 12k. And, Alf photoman,
1:
469:David Horowitz Freedom Center
419:Students for Academic Freedom
415:David Horowitz Freedom Center
405:David Horowitz Freedom Center
296:David Horowitz Freedom Center
682:13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
662:13:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
650:11:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
631:11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
621:11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
608:18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
595:12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
582:05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
562:04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
527:01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
517:00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
493:14:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
477:23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
439:15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
398:02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
380:00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
347:14:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
324:09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
275:21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
253:20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
235:founder of site is notable (
228:16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
201:16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
181:12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
132:12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
53:21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
716:
460:Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
692:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
413:, and fold it too into
315:, give an example. If
67:Discover the Networks
59:Discover the Networks
591:<<-armon-: -->
513:<<-armon-: -->
473:<<-armon-: -->
452:MediaTransparency
301:MediaTransparency
273:
178:
130:
707:
694:
550:FrontPageMag.com
411:FrontPageMag.com
386:FrontPageMag.com
267:
225:
223:
218:
174:
164:
161:
124:
108:
90:
34:
715:
714:
710:
709:
708:
706:
705:
704:
703:
697:deletion review
690:
221:
216:
214:
173:
159:
156:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
713:
711:
702:
701:
685:
684:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
652:
636:
635:
634:
633:
610:
597:
584:
575:David Horowitz
564:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
519:
479:
356:
280:
279:
278:
277:
256:
255:
237:David Horowitz
230:
210:David Horowitz
203:
183:
169:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
712:
700:
698:
693:
687:
686:
683:
680:
676:
673:
672:
663:
660:
657:
653:
651:
648:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
632:
629:
624:
623:
622:
619:
614:
611:
609:
606:
601:
598:
596:
593:
588:
585:
583:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
528:
525:
520:
518:
515:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
484:
480:
478:
475:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
406:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
353:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
336:
335:
330:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
281:
276:
271:
266:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
247:
245:
241:
238:
234:
231:
229:
226:
224:
219:
211:
207:
204:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
182:
177:
172:
167:
163:
162:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
128:
123:
122:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
691:
688:
674:
656:WP:NOT#PAPER
612:
605:70.51.231.96
599:
586:
566:
545:
504:
500:
463:
448:MediaMatters
351:
333:
332:
328:
292:MediaMatters
283:
262:
250:Jersey Devil
232:
213:
205:
198:Alf photoman
185:
157:
150:tin-foil hat
137:
119:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
677:per nom...
579:Dragomiloff
567:Weak Delete
554:Will Beback
548:.(merge to
445:SourceWatch
390:Will Beback
290:is 42k and
288:SourceWatch
166:yukichigai
50:Cbrown1023
659:Andyvphil
628:Andyvphil
577:article.
524:Andyvphil
509:WP:TIGERS
490:Andyvphil
436:Andyvphil
377:Andyvphil
373:WP:FRINGE
355:stronger.
321:Andyvphil
317:WP:FRINGE
244:Salon.com
146:WP:FRINGE
483:NameBase
456:NameBase
140:- Fails
111:View log
647:MaxPont
618:MaxPont
329:Comment
84:protect
79:history
679:Addhoc
675:Delete
613:Delete
571:WP:WEB
546:Delete
505:insist
464:better
432:WP:AGF
430:know,
417:. And
206:Delete
186:Delete
171:ramble
138:Delete
88:delete
46:Delete
600:Merge
592:: -->
514:: -->
474:: -->
352:Reply
344:Speak
340:Jonel
270:Help!
176:argue
152:. --
127:Help!
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
587:Keep
501:any
454:and
427:WP:N
423:WP:N
369:WP:V
365:WP:N
361:WP:N
313:WP:V
305:WP:N
284:Keep
233:Keep
194:WP:V
192:and
190:WP:N
142:WP:N
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
334:low
264:Guy
222:8.5
217:Hut
121:Guy
109:- (
603:--
560:·
556:·
511:.
450:,
396:·
392:·
367:.
342:|
179:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
558:†
394:†
272:)
268:(
168:(
160:|
154:Y
129:)
125:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.