Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose

Motley Moose

Motley Moose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed speedy (A7). Political group blog that fails the notability test (the one reference is incidental) and the blatant advertising test, but only just. 9Nak (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – fails notability criteria. TheAE talk/sign 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —9Nak (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what criteria user "American Eagle" suggesting the page be "speedily deleted" used to arrive at that decision.Ks64q2 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, the article fails WP:A7 (an unsourced organization that doesn't show notability). TheAE talk/sign 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Magazine has written an article on the site, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Daily and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Progress in regard to it's role in the Democratic "primary wars" of 2008, which are all print publications; it's been prominently featured on The Huffington Post, and other ancillary web sites like news aggregator Fark.com, as well as DailyKos, MyDD, and is well-known enough to be disparaged at RedState, a right-wing site havewhich gets similar amounts of traffic as The Motley Moose. Again, I don't see this suggestion for internet-only entries on several other "political blogs", so I'm still not clear how this site warranted one.Ks64q2 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article is notable, and can provide sources that proves it, by all means, add them! Be sure to use inline citations, and make sure these sources are reliable, then add them. An administrator (I am not one) will decide, based on what happens on this page and if the article is notable or not, if it should be kept or deleted. Good luck! TheAE talk/sign 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, but the already-cited references aren't a good enough start? Ks64q2 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Seems to me Article 7 is met by the references already on the page, as they even currently exclude internet-only sources. I'd like to see the deletion charge dismissed.Ks64q2 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There are two references currently on the page. One is a very low Alexa ranking. The second, a linked Prospect piece, fails the notability check as the single mention in a (>) 3 700 word article is purely incidental and does not amount to coverage. If there is non-trivial, non-incidental coverage in reliable sources, please be so kind as to cite it, or at least list it on the entry talk page. 9Nak (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I scan in the print articles from the Cavalier Daily and such? They don't archive their references online; I suppose I could just MLA cite it?71.63.26.57 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources need not be online; it is hugely helpful to other contributors, but absolutely not a requirement. However, they must be cited such that others can verify them (offline, if necessary). Simply claiming coverage, as is the case on this page, does nothing to help establish consensus. So yes, please do cite the article(s). 9Nak (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

9Nak, the piece from Prospect got written specifically be able to mention the site at the end in relation to it's role in ending the "primary war" between Clinton and Obama supporters. Furthermore, again, to compare sites, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/vodkapundit.com is another side a few hundred thousand ranks below Motley Moose that, until I suggested it, didn't seem to be in danger of deletion. I fail to grasp the difference in criteria used t judge these two articles.Ks64q2 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is to ignore (or at least avoid comparison with) other entries because that has been found to not be helpful.

Others can not judge the intention of the writer. Objectively, the Motley Moose is barely mentioned (at least by name). As per the general notability guideline must "address the subject directly in detail" and "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". The cited article fails on both these counts.

Whoever wrote: ": Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is to ignore (or at least avoid comparison with) other entries because that has been found to not be helpful."- I understand and can respect a policy of avoiding "B-b-b-b-but!" comparisons; nonetheless, I tend to agree with Ks64q2 in that I think the comparison should at least merit discussion as there is apparently two completely different sets of criteria being used to judged the pages. As far as I can see on the site that Ks64q2 noted misses all of the criteria suggested by 9Nak. If you don't want to rule on the basis of another article's alleged merits or detriments, fine, but at least explain the disparity.137.54.2.193 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.2.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where's the threshold on who decides whether or not to can this deletion issue?Ks64q2 (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has answered the above questions, which I think are important ones. Any administrators or anyone else willing to take a crack at them?137.54.11.9 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.11.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'll have a go: Firstly the article that Ks64q2 is alluding to can be supported by multiple, reliable sources. I'm finding it difficult to say the same regarding the subject in question. Secondly, the deletion policy details how and when a discussion can be closed; usually it is after five days, but in this case this has been relisted so it may take longer. Does that answer the questions? onebravemonkey 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 9Nak (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: An interesting one, this, as it seems to be a faction of one politics blog taking their ball elsewhere. Whilst I'm conviced of the notability of the blog's creator and of its birthplace, I'm not so sure that this is really the sum of those parts. I'm concerned that this doesn't really describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance (my italics), rather falling back on one link, which is more-or-less the author's poltical agenda. The link that really argues best for inclusion is this one, which gives importance to the site. However, on its own it isn't really sufficient. I'll try to find more, but the case is shakey without more support of its significance. As an aside, please can we keep this discussion civil (having read the talk page of this AFD)? Remember this AFD is not a political huddle, merely discussion of an article about one. onebravemonkey 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• After a fair bit of rummaging, I'm afraid that I can't see anything that supports the criteria here. The links currently provided are really either mentioning the site as an aside or are a brief summary of the nature of the content, rather than any solid support of notability. Perhaps in time it may get there, but not right now. Delete. onebravemonkey 09:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  

• Well, the tone of the article can certainly be modigied so it reads less in the manner you suggest. I'd say this blog is unique in the way it was created- run and managed as a community, rather than as one person or a company (RedState, DailyKos, MyDD). I'll pull some more references, but as seen in the article now, there's been a wide variety of semi-famous guest bloggers, many with wikipedia pages of their own for their notability. Keep.Ks64q2 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)— Ks64q2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Unfortunately, Ks64, It doesn't matter so much how unique they are in your opinion. One passing mention in "Flaming for Obama," and another passing mention on a blog. No notability. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This is the biggest remaining Virginia-based blog, after Raising Kaine has gone to pasture. The "passing" mention on that DailyKos blog was the fact this website had scooped that story, they were the ones who broke it, and DailyKos reported it as such. "Flaming for Obama" had a "passing" mention of it? Would a work that described the history of the internet and information sharing that ended on the note of Wikipedia's creation be a "passing" mention? Maybe so, but that's totally ignorant of the larger importance of that event. I agree with Ks64q2, PeterJukes, and ChrisBlask.137.54.11.9 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)— 137.54.11.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Google News and Google News Archives comes up empty with references to this blog. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  
  Keep. Again, I hate to bring up the "b-b-b-but" excuse, but there are more than one other sites currently considered "notable" enough to include in Wikipedia that have the same result. As 9Nak said, "Policy is to ignore (or at least avoid comparison with) other entries because that has been found to not be helpful."- I can understand not deciding to keep/trash this article on the basis of that alone, but it would be nice to understand why we're using separate sets of criteria to judge the same category of page. The only thing I can see is that the other articles were largely ignored until it was "too late" to suggest deletion.Ks64q2 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment no comment on the notability of the article itself, but there are a lot of comments misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, some from the same editors. For the sake of the closing admin, you can probably leave that issue now. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now Though prepared to reevaluate if more sources are found; I couldn't see anything reliable and non-trivial to assert notability (none of those cited in the article pass these criteria). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Thank you for the clarification on that issue, Blackmetalbaz. Another thought occurred to me on a different note. One of the articles currently referenced is a print article from a newspaper with no complete online archiving of it's past articles. So it's currently MLA sourced, but there are no other articles up- right now. Other articles/references exist (my apologies to those of you using Google exclusively to hunt down information on the website- I know, Google's great, but it ain't the end all and be all, believe it or not). I'm disappointed I didn't think of this earlier, but this article got flagged for "speedy deletion" a couple days after it got posted. I mean, don't we get any sort of window of maybe a couple-three weeks to actually build the article up? Or are we expected to sit down and pour hours into making it perfect from the get-go, hunting down all the references, getting all the cites in order, etc? I'm spending all of the time I could be spending improving this article defending it from being deleted, for fear that I'll return and suddenly everything will be gone! Do you think we could have some leeway to work on this article for a few weeks and then come back and justify it's existence then? Ks64q2 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I appreciate your issue, and obviously want to be as helpful as possible if you want to make a decent article out of this. The way things work round here is that you should basically build this up in your sandbox (particularly if this is your first article) before posting it, to avoid this kind of issue. As things stand, this article may well be deleted, but I suggest you save the content and work on it and consider reposting when you have found these sources demonstrating notability. I'll be happy to help you out any way I can at that point, but at present I'm not sure it'll be around for a few weeks or so. But hey, I'm not an admin. (Final point, and not being arsey, but any chance you could sort out the paragraph thing, because this AfD is getting a bit hard to follow :-)) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Also, there is now 13 references. Dispute their relatively validity in relation to keep the article or not, there's a tag on the article that says it cites "no sources". Could we please get that removed? Ks64q2 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Commment Changed to refimprove, but this is probably discussion for the article talk page, not here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Added a half-dozen new sources, all from "notable" locations. Can we ditch the refimprove now, too? Ks64q2 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Blackmetalbaz suggested moving some of this chat to the "discussion" tab, in order to clear up the que on the Articles for Deletion page and make the general flow easier to follow, but since we seem to be having all the discussion here, I'll make a few points.

• There are now seventeen cites from a variety of sources (from the aforementioned one on 21-FEB-2009), with new levels of notability, erm, notated.
• There has been a general cleanup of the article.
• There's only one missing reference right now, on the main page comparing the traffic from the Moose to other sites- it can be proven Motley Moose has a similar volume of page hits compared to OpenLeft.com, MyDD.com, FireDogLake.com, RedState.com, RaisingKaine.com, but that statistic is stuck on an Alexa widget that doesn't lend itself to linking. If that can be sourced as a non-web link, or simply to Alexa.com, that'll fix that one- the WP:Cite guidelines aren't quite clear on that note.
• Capitalistroadster's suggestion that this article fails the "Google Test" is a fallacy per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Furthermore, as the Rescue Squad noted, Political Blogs have evolved dramatically in recent years and many have become central forums for public conversation. Vanity Blogs which are purely an individual's personal pulpit may, in most cases, be easily excluded from an encyclopedic record, but open multi-user multi-threading political forums are an entirely different case. The Motley Moose is as valid an entity to receive encyclopedic record as DailyKos, MyDD and other online public forums. These forums have become more a Public Square than has ever existed and will, as a class, only grow in significance. Even as a matter of simple historic record, the significant multi-user blogs of today will be items of interest for future research.
• Finally, keep in mind that There is no deadline, consider the article's Potential, not just current state, and Give an article a chance. Not only that, but given the enormous amount of effort and change that's taken place on the page since TheAE made the suggestion to "speedily delete" the page a few hours after it's creation, I'd invoke The Heymann Standard. For a reference, take a look at this.

Strong keep. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails the notability guidelines. For those of you new to Wikipedia, *COUGH*canvassing*COUGH*, topics are usually considered appropriate for an article if they have been written about in a non-trivial manner by multiple reliable sources, independant of the subject. This aricle fails the notability guidelines because, while information can be found on the subject's existance, the subject's notability hasn't been proven. Not every blog can be written about on Wikipedia. The sources have to be about the blog itself, they can't merely mention it or refer to it. There has to be in-depth discussion of the blog, which hasn't happened yet. Themfromspace (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep While my fellow Wikipedian and Deletionist Themfromspace makes an interesting point (though I am not certain what the "*COUGH*canvassing*COUGH*" comment refers to, or how it pertains to the conversation at hand), the notability guideline's suggestions on the topic of "Significant Coverage" may or may not be met on some of the references contained on the page (and certainly were in it's original-form that warranted the deletion suggestion), the above suggestion seems to be made without having referenced the new citations listed on the page. Please provide specific examples of any proper/improper citations you can see. Furthermore, I assure my colleague that any of the current contributor's involvement with the article in question nonwithstanding, the conflict of interest should play no role in this discussion. Not only that, but I would suggest that it's precisely the people who are linked with the project that will provide the most TLC to the page and ensure it will meet Wikipedian standards- though feel free to continue to "show no mercy", it actually helps improve the page in the long run, and ensure we can have a baseline level of quality here on Wikipedia. Thank you, and thank you for your input. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Ks64q2, to avoid confusing the closing admin, can you please strike all but one of your Keep statements. It's generally only necessary to state your view once in that manner, and follow up with Comments (as I've done). Also, I'm going down the sources you've added (which are absolutely from the right types of source) but only one mentions the subject in question. I'm unsure whether notability can be inherited in this way, by asserting that of the contributers. Again, (trying to help as I have been all along), can you please keep in mind the criteria I mentioned in my first comment and see how this article can meet those? onebravemonkey 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)