Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress Matters


 * 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. No prejudice towards recreation in the future, should more reliable sources appear. henrik • talk  11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Congress Matters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted as A7, and challenged. Non-notable blog. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This blog was created as a part of WikiProject Blogging. It's a part of the DailyKos network of sites, including SB Nation. A quick Google Search of "Congress Matters" brings up plenty of sources, and in fact, punch that in under Google News and you can actually see that Google News cites this blog as a source it searches for news articles. I'm preplexed as to why this would make this blog non-notable. Now, there are other sites that are under the DailyKos umbrella, such as "Mother Talkers" and "Street Prophets", which are notable inasmuch as the blogging community go, but perhaps not enough for Wikipedia articles yet, anyway. This article and SB Nation are more than notable enough. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For more information on that Google News Affiliate source, simply goto Talk:Congress_Matters. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with Daily Kos. There are probably enough reliable sources to establish notability, even though this blog is new. For example this, which is about the blog and it's editor. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, the WikiProject Blogging team had initially thought about making this a subsect of the DailyKos page, but it seems to be notable enough to warrant it's own page, especially given the Google News citations. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article establishes no notability of its own through reliable sources. Possibly merge and redirect to Daily Kos--Sloane (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Knew about Daily Kos, but didn't know about this blog until finding this article. -74.242.254.23 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Usefulness or "liking the site" are no reasons for inclusion. Please, see WP:WEB.--Sloane (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article was only created yesterday, give the community some time to collect more sources. Via the Google Test, it's 60% as popular as Old New Thing Jwray (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient reliable sources to establish independent notability. Putting a few lines in the Daily Kos article would also be fine. This blog may someday be notable, but is not at the moment. Editors are always free to build articles in userspace with sufficient citations and notability established and then republish.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is  f*cking two days old? This really is starting to smell like a duck ... campaign again blog articles. Blogs are still not evil and encyclopedic articles are perfectly acceptable. Articles less than 2 days old in particular are poor candidates for deletion. -- Banj e  b oi   07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * * Comment whatever your feelings on the listing, that's not appropriate and I would hope you would reconsider and strike part of your language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This, I'm afraid seems to be tied to this AfD. In any case I think give an article a chance sums up the concerns with jumping on new articles like this. -- Banj e  b oi   10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet neither the edit history of the CSD nominator or the AFD one show much of a connection. Of course that's probably because I assume good faith and don't think that personal attacks are productive, at least without evidence of some kind.  However, you can continue to attack every blog listed for deletion or every brand new article listed as related to the Motley Moose AFD if you feel that's productive.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you could assume good faith here, I'm neither pro or con blogs per se but I do have a wp:Brain and can smell WP:Ducks. In any case the acrimony that has plagued that AfD seems absent here which is a good thing, we'll see where it goes from here. -- Banj e  b oi   02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the CSD nom I have no connection to, nor have ever heard of Motley Moose. Shumin's record is impeccable. Although he often doesn't CSD stuff that I think should be CSD'd, he's by no means in anybody's pocket here. Shumin saved the page from deletion. My CSD was after a previously successful CSD. A lot has come to light since then, so I won't comment on this AfD at all, but as Ricky says, assume good faith here. I don't have any stake in the issue, and I'm reasonably sure Shumin nor the original delete do either. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that user "Banjeboi" was referring to you, or Schumin. The only complaint I'd have about Schumin is that when I created this article, it got flagged for Speedy Delete before I could post the sandbox text in it; I explained it to him, he looked it over, gave it his okay, and went on his way- then it got deleted again, and I tried to explain that to him to no avail. Obviously, I was vindicated here, and I know he wasn't acting in bad faith, but some WP:AGF or WP:NORUSH toward me would have been nice. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My fault for assuming too much. Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Daily Kos. Probably keep as there does seem to be some independent notability, possibly though on Waldman. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- just added a source. The independent coverage is out there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we close this AfD? I think all the opinions to the contrary have changed their minds to Keep. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Same deal in general. Even if the nom withdraws their comments to keep, if there is even one delete vote we generally let the discussion play out for the five days. There are certainly exceptions but having more input isn't usually a bad thing. -- Banj e  b oi   12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, or Merge and redirect to DailyKos - not notable on its own, just part of the DailyKos franchise. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Is the fact that this blog is used by Google News to pull up news sources a notable thing, or not? I would think so... certainly, I don't know any other blogs that are referenced as news on Google News. Thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not. There's a fair number of them. Check out the requirements for being included -- the bar is set fairly low.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali Ultimate. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, from WP:WEB "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" and there is some of that, despite being small and new. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali Ultimate. I'm not convinced that there is enough independent coverage here to establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per User:Orangemike. -- samj in out 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability isn't inherited from the parent blog. A mention in Daily Kos would be sufficient.  Them  From  Space  21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the extensive coverage and the fact google news sources it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.38.54 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC) --> — 70.188.38.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Looking over the references and the limited amount of time the blog has existed, there does not appear to be enough information to determine real notability. Therefore, we delete for now and it can be recreated in the future if necessary. JRP (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.