Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers

I ranted some over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Canadian blogosphere but it could just as easily have gone here as well. Friday 15:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing scratch pad

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers

Old VfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

Delete arguments

Delete: Whatever else we have is always an argument by analogy. Looking at this article, we get unverifiable claims and, essentially, an ad for a particular blog. Blug. If there is a systemic bias, it's the bias created by slashdotted votes whenever a forum/blog/website comes up for deletion. Geogre 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, not this again. What a pain in the ass this debate was last time. All sorts of newbies and anons and arguments and name calling. Someone even claimed that deleting the article would harm polticial debate in Canada. Anyway, nominal delete, because that's how I voted last time, and I don't think anyone ever convinced me otherwise. -R. fiend 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need to list every blogging group on wikipedia? And if you start saying that there's a lot of American blogger groups entries in wikipedia, please point them out so I can VFD them as well. --Timecop 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing that, Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Because, as discussed above, this is part of Progressive Blogger's war on wikipedia. Thank Bob that this is a discussion and not a vote. That means that since there has been no evidence presented that this is important to anyone outside the rabidly incestuous blogging community, it will probably be deleted. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anybody calls me a sock... will, um... get socked. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blogcruft and canuckcruft. Dottore So 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Skrewler 01:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa ranking is 760,324. --Joel7687 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable except to the people who write in it. And the puppets? Eeeww. Ifnord 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. (CC of my Blogging Tories vote cos I don't want to sound biased) - Randwicked 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Every political blogger out there wants it's 5 minutes of fame, and wikipedia really isn't a grounds for that. Google's cache is all you really need, not worth writing about, or reading for that matter. --Depakote 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable/trash Adamn 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ vote pending further review (see below) Despite claims that they're important in the political scene (on the talk page) in Canada, I find no actual media coverage to that effect. If they're as important as the New York Times (again a claim from the talk page) you'd think there'd be at least ONE reference to them on Google News... but alas, nothing. Doesn't really seem to be many comments at all to blog entries, suggesting not a large community. Low Alexa rank. Nothing to suggest there's a reason to have an article. --W.marsh 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can verify the claim of their importance, then I'd quite possibly change my vote. But claims alone != proof. --W.marsh 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogcruft. Reyk 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure votes

Delete. -- Femmina

Low previous participation in community

Delete. Simply not notable. Incognito 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. -- As notable as my mother. (she's not unless you have a list of porn stars with huge tits) 65.34.232.136 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. 86.139.205.160 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:86.139.205.160's first edit. Two other edits on another political blog AFD. Luigizanasi 03:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly NOT notable. --Impi.za 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user's eleventh edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments

Weak keep for the above reasons. --Merovingian 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly more notable than GNAA, which we have an article on. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first two sources cited by W.Marsh. Include them in the article if they're not there yet. (If Alexa doesn't show the notability of a website, one should not complain about US bias, but find alternative means to back up its inclusion) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable blogging group in Canada. Simon.Pole made it quite evident in the last AfD discussion that this site is politically notable in Canada with a fairly large number of media citations, notable memebers, etc. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadians seem to be in agreement that this plays a significant role in Canadian politics. That seems sufficien§t to keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable group of Canadian bloggers. Bloggers are becoming increasingly influential and Wikipedia should maintain a comprehensive coverage of significant bloggers and groups. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There was an acrimonious debate over this entry just a few months ago, I see no good reason to revisit the subject. - SimonP 02:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep in mind non-American systemic bias identified in Wikipedia. Using Alexa ranks to support deletion of non-American entries is a biased situation, because of the low national populations of other countries compared to the US (Canada has 1/10th the population).--Simon.Pole 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does no adress article

Keep Because, as discussed above, this is part of an organised campaign by known trolls. mennonot 17:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure votes

Keep __earth 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Low previous community participation

Keep I don't believe much of the opinion that goes on there, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it.Semperf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If every Conservative had their way the only things posted on Wikipedia, or any other site for that matter, would be Conservative propaganda. HisHighness420
Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging, same as Blogging Tories. -- The Invisible Hand 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user's eighth edit. Lord Bob 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it real

vote by 207.200.116.66 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both Blogging Torries and Progressive Bloggers enable Canadian web users to access blogging communities of like minded individual. These communities enable anyone to engage in a common forum across Canada where ideas and politics can be shared and critiqued. Without these blogs, Canadians from the grassroots to the top would not have a central online source to measure what other like minded individuals think on topics important to them. This in my opinion makes them notable. --Jtorgers 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user's second edit, has only editted this AfD. Lord Bob 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this site is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.129.117 (talk • contribs)

Keep: I'm sick of these far-right yahoos trying to crush the opposition with dirty-pool tactics like this.Dawg9:10, 15 November 2005 [DST]

Merge arguments

Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Slartoff 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

- Can you provide a link to any of those media citations? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to be informed. I can't find the references, I've looked. --W.marsh 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alot of the references were in the last vfd, and are actually collected in the Progressive Bloggers entry. I'll list some of them here though:
    - Role of Canadian blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers on the Gurmant Grewal national political controversy discussed on [CTV]
    - Progressive Blogger member Dominion Daily weblog entered in the Parliamentary record during a constitutional debate by Seantor Anne Cools.
    - Columnist Antonia Zerbisias at Canada's highest circulation paper the Toronto Star regularly cites Progressive Bloggers as a source of news and ideas eg. 1, 2
    - Progressive Bloggers includes notable Canadians as members. These include pop star Matthew Good, Young Liberal Executive Co-Chair Jason Cherniak, and candiates for Parliament from the national parties including NDP member Crystal Leblanc.
    - The Progressive Bloggers "opposite number" the Blogging Tories, has almost the same qualities, including national public figures members like Adam Dafallah, national party candidates like Stephen Taylor and a good number of sitting MPs like Monte Solberg,Jeremy Harrison,Steven Fletcher, Jeff Watson and Andrew Scheer. Blogging groups, both left and right-wing, have national political signicance in Canada, something, judging by the reactions of non-Canadians, does not exist elsewhere --Simon.Pole 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for that information, I've retracted my vote for now and will review those further when I get time tomorrow. --W.marsh 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]