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. PeaceNT 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Politician[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, fails notability requirements, no reliable sources. Mackan 09:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to frame this as being something other than what it is: a blog with guest writers. There's no peer-review, so calling this structure a journal is somewhat meretricious. Nothing has been advanced in support of notability or verifiability other than the credentials of the authors which are not necessarily inherited by all of their writings. Deranged bulbasaur 10:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author of the article ignored the notice above the text box: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." --Aarktica 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's the reason we believe Global Politician should remain:

GP was recognized as a news source and not a blog by dozens of online news wires, including Google News, Ask News and MSN NewsBot.

GP was recognized as a legitimate magazine by dozens of politicians (including four Presidents and Prime Ministers), diplomats and generals. We expect to interview Ron Paul and Jim Gilchrist (Minutemen) in the coming days where Ron Paul will support open borders while Gilchrist will support closed borders.

GP conducted original investigative research by (1) going to Kyrgyzstan where we were the first to discover that the Tulip revolution was foreign-sponsored by taking and publishing pictures of Central Asian revolt leaders in non-Kyrgyz garb (they were Uzbek and Tajik); (2) going to Cambodia to interview former child prostitutes; (3) interviewing a former intelligence operative to reveal identity of 7/7 London bombings; (4) busting terror-group covers by showing that terrorist run then, as well as by listing the specific bank accounts and paypal emails used to fundraise for al-Qaida.

GP was recently on a list of Alexa's "Movers & Shakers" for increasing over 350,000 spots in 3 months. We've just hired a full-time SEO specialist which we expect to significantly increase our traffic in the coming months. Yesterday we were ranked 52,453 for the day. We expect that our 3-month rankings will be somewhere in the range of 50,000 by the end of the summer or the fall at the latest.

Almost all our contributors have a graduate degree or published a book. Their expert analysis, in addition to our investigative research and exclusive interviews, makes GP very much a notable magazine and not a blog.

Granted, GP is relatively new, but we've done a phenomenal job securing interviews and no blog has ever done the kind of investigative journalism we have by going to far off spots like Kyrgystan.

Here're some sources that cited GP. I remember seeing a lot more before, but can't spend too long searching for it. Interestly enough, GP was "notable" enough for Wikipedia to dedicate 2 pages to respond to a critical article by Sam Vaknin (our assistant editor, who was an advisor to governments in several countries and co-authored a book with the present Prime Minister of Macedonia). Yet, when we decided to run some articles by anti-Islamist writers, we came under this assault. If we aren't notable, why did Wikipedia dedicate two pages to a response to us?

possible keep If the interviews can be documented. I think that this is an indication of notability. Newspapers andthe like are edited, not peer-reviewed--nobody is claiming this is an academic journal. DGG 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But tidy up and make it clear it is web published not a paper journal.Lumos3 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep. This is one of the most widely-read websites for policymakers in the Defense and State departments and NGOs across the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.102.18 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 May 2007— 128.164.102.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, but Wikify. Has notable contributors, and has already been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia (not by me, yet) so the project is not advanced by failing to have information on its sources. Andyvphil 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This work is notable and has been referenced from the followingL

http://www.stratfor.com/press-room/archive/2005/november.php http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/08/russias_hope.html and many more and is shown on google news. I am a fan of there websites and would like to point out that every article has a description of there author and most of them have phd's in that field of interest. The rest are notable in that articles field of interest. If you take the opportunity to visit there website and go to the page to get published http://globalpolitician.com/getpublished.asp you will see the following To become a writer, you must: * Be a published author or journalist; or * Have an advanced degree (Master's, Ph.D. or J.D.) in a related field. * Be a recognized expert who has been interviewed in the media or otherwise recognized for his expertise. This is going far and above the call of being a notable website. So I vote a definite KEEP— 24.47.146.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia's Jihad?Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Daily Pundit, Global Politician. All came under fire by the same editors. Interestingly, GP (of which I am the senior editor) had profile for a long time without a problem when we ran predominatly liberal articles. Recently, several conservative, anti-Islamist writers joined and bingo, we came under fire. I'm sure it's a coincidence...

Keep I read this more than many newspapers. Clearly notable. To the previous commenter's remark, yes it does appear that a couple of editors are targeting anti-Islamist blogs for AfD. Jmcnamera 01:44, 29 May 2007 (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.