User:Ks64q2/Sandbox

The Motley Moose

This article was submitted for deletion- see the discussion at Articles for deletion/Motley Moose. On 21-FEB-2009, the article was submitted for speedy deletion with no prior notice- there was no attempt to made to contact the article's authors, and no attempt to improve the article. The "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page" was not posted. There was no PROD suggested. The article was merely sent straight to speedy deletion. This may have been an ideologically-driven

Whatever the purpose of the nominator, the "speedy delete" was eventually modified down to a regular AfD discussion upon review by other Wikipedia editors with a clearer head. Again, no attempt was made to contact any of the article's authors. On 25-FEB-2009, the article's authors first became aware of the possible impending deletion of the article and immediately went to work both in improving the article, and working in a vain attempt to stave off deletion. Two days later a final decision was rendered by an admin thusly:

"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)"

Blatant disregard of the AfD guidelines aside, the main arguments for the deletion of the article in the Articles for deletion/Motley Moose discussion were:


 * The webpage referenced by the article didn't garner enough traffic to meet notability standards
 * The article failed the "Google Test" for references
 * Several sources referenced failed particular guidelines set forth in the [References] guidelines
 * The webpage referenced by the article was a "vanity" site, as opposed to a "community" site
 * The article's creators and contributors had a financial motive for launching the site and defending it's deletion
 * The Wikipedia Rescue Squad members responding to the article's deletion notice were "meatpuppets" referred to the discussion in a canvassing attempt to save the article

All of these arguments (and more!) were addressed in the original Articles for Deletion discussion; sadly, almost none were addressed specifically. A summation of the arguments, and the responses to them, summarized (relatively) briefly:


 * The webpage referenced by the article didn't garner enough traffic to meet notability standards
 * Relative traffic of the Wikipedia entry and page referenced in the article are not allowed, per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions


 * The article failed the "Google Test" for references
 * The suggestion that the article failed the "Google Test" is also not allowed, per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.


 * Several sources referenced failed particular guidelines set forth in the [References] guidelines
 * This was one of the main points of contention. Specific complaints with references were as follows:
 * 1. "Sources given are mostly blogs"
 * Many of the sources contained within were, indeed, blogs. However, this is a complete misnomer. The complaint suggested disdaining for "blogs", as if there weren't worthy of citation. However, (Wikipedia blog site) suggests otherwise. Given the nature of Wikipedia, and it's role in current Internet culture, this seems a particularly pedantic position to take. While this point would have some more merit if the "blogs" in question were "vanity" sites run by indiviudals for social networking or communication, the cited sources were far from it. The notability of the sites referenced- The Daily Kos, MyDD, The Huffington Post, TalkingPointsMemo, RedState, and LittleGreenFootballs- cannot reasonably be questioned. To question the sources based simply on the fact a majority of them were "blogs" is inappropriate.
 * 2. "Sources don't mention The Motley Moose"
 * Several of the sources referenced were of important contributors to "The Motley Moose", and thus led back to places establishing those contributor's notability, rather than that of "The Motley Moose" itself. Far from being discouraged, this is a bona fide method of establishing notability as set forth in WEB. While the explanation behind this was provided, the point was ignored in the deletion process. It is perfectly reasonable to infer notability of an article vis-a-vis the contributors of the subject the article discusses. However, this is obviously not a point that can stand on it's own in establishing notability, it has to be in conjunction with other references.
 * One of the sources didn't mention "The Motley Moose" because it used material authored on "The Motley Moose" with no permission or credit given from "The Motley Moose"- the only reference given was a brief URL pointing back to the original article buried in the bottom of the page in question. While this is a rather impolite set of circumstances, it should not deny the notability of "The Motley Moose". What's the old axiom? "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." A source whose notability is unquestioned felt the need to reference an important article chronicled first on "The Motley Moose"; sadly, they don't have a talented and dedicated pool of administrators and peer reviewers to call them on that omission, as we do here on Wikipedia.
 * A sitting US Congressman mentioned and specifically discussed "The Motley Moose" by name; more on this shortly, but that seems to be a fairly notable occurence.
 * 3. "Sources are not independent"
 * One of the references linked back to the informational page on "The Motley Moose"; this obviously was never intended to stand on it's own as a reference, merely to help chronicle and fully and properly cite the article.
 * One of the references led back to an article written on the site that was a sit-down interview done with now-Congressman Tom Periello, D-VA-05. Congressman Periello won one of the biggest upsets of the 2008 Election Season, as chronicled at VA-05. "The Motley Moose" was one of only two political "blogs" that Congressman Periello agreed to sit down for an interview with; thus, the article was itself posted on "The Motley Moose". While frowning on a article that references it's own subject as a notable source is certainly understandable, this is clearly a different circumstance. Remember, these notability suggestions are guidelines, not policies; they were not intended to be used as a crutch to take the easy way out from justifying making a personal call. Furthermore, there is plenty of supporting documentation behind this article and the events and discussions with Congressman Periello and his staff; however, they're in private communications. Public disclosure of that information is simply out of the question, which is as it should be considering journalistic confidentiality issues. However, posting the evidence of those claims in a private, admin-viewable only way would certainly be possible. There are still problems inherent in that issue, though; while Wikipedia contributors are, by and large, driven by their motivation to add value to the Wikipedia community, there is no guarantee someone with an ideological bent could use that information to the detriment of the parties involved. This is certainly an issue that can be resolved in conjunction with an administrator, however.
 * Other interviews were done with people notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia site- Al Weed, former Democratic candidate for Congress in VA-05; Sam Rasoul, the Democratic candidate for Congress in VA-06, and an email interview was done with VA Senator Jim Webb, all of whom felt "The Motley Moose" was important enough to warrant their time. However, neither Mr. Weed nor Senator Jim Webb were running for re-election (though Senator Webb's interview is mentioned in Congressman Periello's), and Mr. Rasoul did not win re-election, so the article published on Motley Moose on his interview
 * 4. "No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown"
 * This is demonstrably false, and was one of the biggest points agreed upon by the opposing parties in this discussion. The Cavalier Daily did an independent story on Virginia's evolving role and newfound importance in the electoral landscape of our country, and there was a several-paragraph focus on "The Motley Moose". Sadly, The Cavalier Daily does not archive their entire history of articles online, so the only evidence for this is physical. This can certainly be proven through contacting the article's author, or via a physical scan of the article itself, but this would seem to be a particularly egregious and unreasonable request, given no guidelines provided by Wikipedia anywhere suggest this is necessary or encouraged- however, if it is the difference between that and deletion of the article, the choice is clear.
 * A subpoint to this is the nature of the article itself, and the aforementioned interview with Congressman Tom Periello. The article's specific focus was on the unique nature of "The Motley Moose", as discussed in the article in question, and it's newfound importance in the Virginia blogosphere, given the disolution of neighboring site Raising Kaine. It ended with passionate case for the election of now-Congressman Periello. This was a mere two weeks before the election took place; Congressman Periello then went on to win what was arguably the biggest upset of the 2008 election by a mere few hundred votes. Congressman Periello outperformed any Democratic candidate to ever stand election in Virginia's 5th Congressional district- but it was the strength of the numbers he posted in the very precient The Cavalier Daily is most read in that gave him the margin to outweigh vote defecits in other preceints and put him over the edge. Obviously, it would be impossible (and not particularly realistic) to claim credit for Congressman Periello's win, which is why this story was absent from the article proper. However, perhaps this addendum is appropriate to include it in, as it certainly gives a new insight into the history and notability of "The Motley Moose".
 * The webpage referenced by the article was a "vanity" site, as oppposed to a "community" site
 * This was entirely incorrect, and was addressed specifically in the introduction of the article. This was perhaps one of the biggest misunderstandings of this affair. One of the contributors to both "The Motley Moose" and the Wikipedia article was Peter Jukes. Peter became aware of the site during it's creation in the wake of the 2008 Democratic Primary wars, and after finding out more about it and the history behind it's creation and purpose, decided to write an article in Prospect Magazine about the site. Somehow, the deletion reviewers came under the impression that the entire response was either written or engineered by Peter himself, or people he enlisted, and that "The Motley Moose" was a vanity site that he created. This is absolutely incorrect; as I explained, Peter became aware of the site only after it's initial inception.
 * This claim was also used to dispute the validity of one of the references cited, the aforementioned article in Prospect Magazine. The argument was the article essentially amounted to a biography or self-promotion of a vanity site, hence it was inadmissible as a reference. As has been explained, this is completely false.
 * In regards to the Prospect Magazine article as well- The article (which has drawn a lot of attention and cross referencing) provides the notability of the blogosphere primaries (the first big political battle in cyberspace), the importance of the site MyDD as a frontline of these battles (run as it is by the "blogfather" Jerome Armstrong, and the migration of 25 of the leading bloggers there to form the Moose in these exceptional circumstances. This whole section was part of news that made worldwide headlines, with the exodus from DailyKos of pro-Clinton bloggers (heck, it even received the Colbert Bump). That is where the historical notability arises- especially in the growing world of political blogs. As the piece says, they have become more important than TV in many regards, and Obama's election- especially his nomination in the first place- hinged on online advocacy and astute use of internet politics. The Motley Moose has a significant role in these events, both cause and effect.
 * The article's creators and contributors had a financial motive for launching the site and defending it's deletion **and** The Wikipedia Rescue Squad members responding to the article's deletion notice were "meatpuppets" referred to the discussion in a canvassing attempt to save the article
 * This was a particularly egregious claim. The discussion left the merits of the Wikipedia Community Guidelines, which specifically forbid this sort of accusational-based arguments in an AfD discussion- this aside the fact that such claims were entirely without merit whatsoever. The site the article references is an unincorporated 501(c), per the Interstate Business statutes of the Commonweatlth of Virginia, and, as previously stated, is not beholden to any one person. This was one of the primary reasons motivating the site's creation, and contributing to it's history and notability.

Sadly, it seems that none of these points have made a difference- once the deletion process got started, nothing was able to dissuade it's progress. Hopefully, we can avoid this sad turn of events again.