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.
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]
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]
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]
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.