Talk:Rootstrikers

Project
This article is part of the WikiProject Politics/Money and politics task force

Contested deletion
Article subject seems to exist, but by the lack of non-promotional google hits, may not be able to demonstrate independent notability. I'd say merge to Lawrence Lessig. I wish that Morning Joe link had a time on it&mdash;I gave up listening. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article could use more pageviews. However, at this point, I think it is wise to keep the two subjects -- Lawrence Lessig and Rootstrikers -- separate. One is about a person; the other is the organization. While there doesn't yet appear to be much interest in the organization, the issues with which it deals are serious and potentially transformative -- if a Constitutional Convention ever happens, the implications could be enormous (although personally I think the odds of one happening are very slim.) I think we should keep two articles for the time being.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's the crux, "interest in the organisation" is exactly what determines notability. Being dedicated to noble or "serious" may be interesting, but it does not confer notability (see WP:SOAP). There just isn't enough third-party published material to confer notability for the actual organisation. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you see the references? Lessig gets a lot of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) But what I was pointing out is that this article's pageviews are anemic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pageviews are not a factor; the problem is the lack of independent, reliable sources reporting on the subject. Notability is not inherited from Lessig. Per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your organization, even if you expect it might someday become notable.
 * I'm in no hurry to delete this article&mdash;I'm the one who contested the prod&mdash;but if it goes to WP:AFD, I don't think a case can be made for keeping in this state. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted. FYI Rootstrikers is not my organization. For me, pageviews is an issue -- I like readers; so when I see few readers here, it bothers me; I like writing stuff here that people read. I agree pageview counts has nothing to do with Wikipedia's rules which should govern. But your contention that no case could be made for keeping the article seems difficult for me to accept since there are close to ten solid inline citations in reliable sources which I believe will stand up to any evaluation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How does one get counts of pageviews, including how that might be varying over time? DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Go to the Wikipedia article. Click "Article History". Click on "Page view statistics". You can do it for different months, or do a 90-day one. Another method: WikiWatch -- adjust frequency of counts. (24 hour, weekly, monthly etc). Remember that these statistics are easily manipulable -- all it records is someone clicking on an article. It doesn't show who clicked, why, how long they visited, or (I believe) whether it is the same person clicking numerous times. In practice, however, it does give a rough estimate of the level of interest in subjects. My sense with this article is that there are enough WP:RS for the article to stay, but I like stuff I've written to be read by lots of people. I guess pageview counts is my personal sense of notability, not Wikipedia's, and we must go by Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. For the past 90 days, this article has  gotten around 15 views per day.  How does this compare with (a) the views it received last June when deletion was proposed and (b) the background rate from bots of various kind?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article averages perhaps 15 pageviews per day. I don't know if bots affect this count, but my sense is the pageview count is a fairly good indicator of interest. Counts may have been higher in June when the article was first floated (new page patrollers usually average 40 to 80 depending on the topic). And readership is usually somewhat lower in summer months. Looking at counts per month, there has been a slight increase, from about 10/day during July to about 15/day in November (the December count is only based on 1 day and is probably unreliable). So it is not a "hot" topic but the numbers, still, are fairly respectable I suppose. I would love for Wikipedia to have better metrics for article readership, as well as tools so I can see how well my various contributions are faring. I floated a new article medical tricorder and am wondering what kind of readership it will get; probably 30/day. Some of my best ones were Ice bath from nothing to 400/day, higher during summer months, and History of citizenship is coming along fairly nicely, from nothing to sometimes 200/day.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pageview counts for "Rootstrikers" in 2012:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mon Tot Pageviews/day
 * Dec 24    24.0
 * Nov 449   15.0
 * Oct 454   14.6
 * Sep 363   12.1
 * Aug 312   10.1
 * Jul 311   10.0
 * Jun 427   14.2--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)