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 Delete. Sources given are mostly blogs, or don't mention Motley Moose, or are not independent. No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown. Fram (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motley Moose

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [reply]

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

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. [reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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. [reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Strong keep. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)— Ks64q2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment (to Ks64q2 with edit conflict) Canvassing is a behaviour of trying to advertise a debate to a set of accounts likely to !vote for your side. I'm not accusing anybody of being guilty of it, but I'm pointing out that the behaviour of some voters here (such as IPs who have never edited Wikipedia before) is likely the result of canvassing. As to the sources, all of them that already exist are fine. What's needed is more sourcing. Any sourcing is good, but what's needed to meet the notability guidelines I referenced above is sourcing that demonstrates that this blog has recieved the attention (nontrivially) of the world. A passing reference or statistics about the blog aren't enough. For example, if an article in the New York Times, a major newspaper, were solely devoted to the discussion of this blog, most everybody would say it would meet WP:N. It might take several mentions in university campus newspapers for a consensus to agree that it meets WP:N, as one college's problem might not be notable to the world. As for the conflict of interest; conflict of interest is sometimes a problem when dealing with content but it's always a problem when dealing with intent. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promotion, and it's highly suggested that articles be edited by subjects that do not have a financial interest in their articles, for obvious NPOV reasons. By the way, you should only !vote once in an AfD, any further commentary shouldn't include a bold !vote. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have struck (stricken?) all but the last of my "keep" statements, per onebravemonkey suggestion; thank you for pointing that out. For references, I'd question articles like [1], which was done with a now-US Congressman in one of the most closely-fought elections in the country. Most serious contenders for US Congress don't sit down with "un-notable" blogs, and said Congressman narrowly won the election by the strength of the numbers he got out of the voting precient the blog is headquartered/most active and popular in; the article referenced from The Cavalier Daily ran a mere two weeks before the election. Obviously, they haven't claimed to be the ones to "put him over the edge", as that would be presumptuous (and impossible to prove in any case), but it's something to consider in re notability. Furthermore, perhaps the Wikipedian standards in this area could be considered more fluid than rigid; there are a number of notable regulars on the site (some of whom, I believe, have their own Wikipedia pages), so while they don't mention the site specifically somewhere to be cited, the fact they participate on the site should add to it's noteworthiness. Another consideration is that one of the major sites linked source the article/scoop without mentioning the cite by name (just indirectly through the URL in a footnote); this is sort-of a Catch 22, as they apparently pay attention to the site, but gave no credit for us to reference to it. Is that a sufficient start? Themfromspace, I've perused your user-page and I understand your motives and intent; believe me, I'm with you. While I think it's important to be inclusive with Wikipedia, as I mentioned before, we want a baseline standard of quality. I only note one "keep" on the page other than mine (not counting the "discussion" thread, which has two more contributors), and while I'm pretty sure I know who contributed that, I assure you it wasn't through "canvassing". I discussed some of the notability concerns you had previously in this response, but I'd also like to point out that I have no link to the article's namesake in any personal interest (and certainly not a financial one!) in pushing to keep this article other than I occasionally contribute to discussions/diaries on the site. That, and having seen what the article was previously and wanting to have a fair shake to bring it up to Wikipedian standards rather than see it deleted. However, both of your comments nonwithstanding, none of the issues I suggested in my last "Strong Keep" comment have been hit on by anyone yet- such as the The Heymann Standard, or that this is not a "Vanity Blog" we're discussing (where Themfromspace's concerns about a "financial conflict of interest" would be more valid). Any thoughts you could provide on those issues would be appreciated, if nothing else for my own personal growth as a Wikipedia contributor. Ks64q2 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When are 17 references actually just one? Detailed breakdown on the talk page. Suffice it to say that notability has still not been established. 9Nak (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (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.
  1. ^ http://motleymoose.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=120
Category