Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectVirginia


 * 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. The consensus is that the sourcing issue has not been adequately met at this point. Recreation of the article may be viable when such sourcing arises. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ProjectVirginia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a political action committee that was founded this year. The article cites a Mashable post which mentions it briefly, and there are some posts about it on conservative blogs, but there's nothing in google news archive. I don't think it's notable. Prezbo (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Age is not a relevant consideration for notability. The Mashable articleis located on the Google News Archive.  I would like to red flag Prezbo's use of the term "conservative blogs" as a possible root of personal bias in these matters.  In addition, Prezbo put the article up for AFD after I removed the PROD tag which I negated with the added reference.Phenry09 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see no issue with the mention of support from conservative blogs. As mentioned below, the Mashable entry is not a significant article is more about social media than ProjectVirginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2009(UTC)
 * - Please Sign This Comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - perfectly serviceable stub. The article asserts notability and has a source.  Needs cleanup and improvement but that's not an AfD issue. Delete - good faith searches return no news, scholarly or general Google references - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD issue is that reliable secondary sources devoted to the article subject don't seem to exist.Prezbo (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well pointed out, vote changed above, thanks - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – Lacks GHits of substance - mostly blogs, facebook, etc.  No GNEWS except the Mashable entry (read this as lacking multiple entries).  The Mashable entry is not a significant article is more about social media than ProjectVirginia.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have to agree, there's no evidence to suggest that sources are available to show how notable this organization is. Whether the group was mentioned in conservative blogs, liberal blogs, or slightly silly blogs, the fact is that blogs can post whatever they wish. In some cases, they are reliable for what they say (X made a statement on their blog saying Y), but in most cases they don't work as reliable sources, whatever their leanings. This group may prove notable, and sources may emerge from future coverage - and, if that's the case, great, we can have an article then. This one might be premature, though. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep After a small amount of research I found a great deal of information about what this organization is doing.  Google News is not the be all, end all source for notability verification, or else it would be listed as so.  At least one of the blog posts is in Alexa's top ten blogs.  The article should be allowed to persist as it stands so that other members of the community can add to it.  In addition, I would contest that if these standards were applied equally to every organization listed in the Political Action Committee category, the category would be liquidated.  Perhaps it should be, I cannot know for sure.Phenry09 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – Press releases and blogs are generally not considered as independent, verifiable sources. Please show us where the in the  criteria it states that, an article should be left to stand "...so that other members of the community can add to it."  I am not sure what you are getting at with regards to the category, but this is a forum to discuss this article's merits.   ttonyb  (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – I would not contend that a press release is an independent source, that would be just ludicrous. However, a cause and effect relationship can exist between the former and the latter blog posts.  The category was presented as a source for similar articles.  Many organizations somehow have maintained articles with lower levels of notability.  The merits of this article should be judged independently, I do not contest that.  However, it would seem that in order to make an honest assessment of this article's notability, it would be helpful to analyze the competition so to speak.Phenry09 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – See WP:WAX. Notability is not judged by comparison to other articles, but rather to the applicable  notability criteria.  There may well be other articles that should be deleted; however, this is a forum to discuss this article's merits. ttonyb  (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – Be that as it may, I contest that the organization is notable because of it's wide prevalence in the blogging community.  You and I have exhausted our material in the discussion and I would hope that others will now have the chance to input their vote.  Also please make an effort to assume good faith on the part of this editor, as a new user I obviously cannot be aware of every policy, as such please be respectful as you continue to guide my article development.Phenry09 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've looked through the sources currently in the article; they're almost entirely not independent (being ProjectVirginia itself) or not reliable (being blogs and forums). The exception is the Washington Examiner, which doesn't make any reference to ProjectVirginia.  You can argue that some blogs SHOULD be reliable sources, but per current policy (WP:RS) they're not, and wishing doesn't change that.  Without reliable sources the article is unable to pass WP:N and neither my good faith searches nor any of the comments above have been able to demonstrate any evidence that those sources exist. (Also, there's no evidence of a "wide prevalance in the blogging community" as the total lack of ghits shows - are you accusing Google of filtering right-wing blogs from its searches?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Could you please post the sentence from WP:RS that specifically outlaws blogs in every instance from serving as reliable sources?Phenry09 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, it's not all blogs, it's THESE blogs. The Next Right may or may not be reliable but the cited source is an opinion column that name checks the project without attesting to its notability.  SWAC Girl is a sole-blogger unedited unverified blog hosted on Blogspot.  The Washington Examiner is certainly reliable but doesn't actually refer to ProjectVirginia.  Pajamas Media is a (commercialised) aggregation of opinion blogs that as far as I can see makes no claim of editorial oversight and doesn't cite its sources, and again it's only a namecheck rather than an attestation of notability.  Right Wing News may or may not be reliable (certainly not independent, given its tagline) but the cited article is a straight unedited repost of something sent in by the community.  So, yes, the sources are a bit rubbish.  What you need is even one article from a reputable news source making the claim that Project Virginia is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –I am pretty sure that the Washington Examiner went so far a to directly quote a member of the organization in their article. In addition, I am sensing that no criteria has been ratified by the Wikipedia community that guides the determination of the credibility of blogs of any type.  Therefore, it seems as if your opinion on credibility is guiding your recommendation, and that hardly seems appropriate.Phenry09 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – A quote from someone that is a member of an organization hardly makes the article about the organization and it hardly makes it significant coverage of that organization. Most blogs lack editorial oversight and simply put are unreliable as independent or verifiable sources.  The basic notion that references need to be independent and verifiable has been agreed to by the Wikipedia community.  Can we also please remember this page should be a discussion of the merits of this article and not as an discussion of the merits of existing Wikipedia polices.  If you wish to discuss items not related to the article, please take them to talk page - it will save the reviewing admin from having to wade through non-related a discussion.  Thanks...  ttonyb  (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –I contest that this discussion is relevant to the proceedings, especially if people voting for deletion are citing policies which are not explicitly stated by Wikipedia. In a debate as crucial as an AFD inferring the existence of a policy which questions the reliability of a source is of the utmost importance.Phenry09 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –And correct me if I am wrong, but national media outlets are not generally in the habit of directly quoting those "non-notable" crackpots everyone seems to be worried about.Phenry09 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – I am not sure what this has to do with the price of cheese in Chile - yes, this is humor. As I indicated above, "A quote from someone that is a member of an organization hardly makes the article about the organization and it hardly makes it significant coverage of that organization."   ttonyb  (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –Weak attempts at humor aside, quoting your previous posts does not give additional weight to your argument because you cannot provide a reference for your "opinion" in Wikipedia policy.Phenry09 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Phenry09, the relevant policies are WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. I've outlined above why I feel the sources cited in the article don't fall within the reliable sources policy.  If you feel that they are, indeed, reliable sources, I'll confess to not having understood your argument to that effect and would politely invite you to re-state it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (OUTDENT) – Discussion moved to Phenry09's talk page ttonyb (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overt political canvassing. Deb (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –This type of reasoning is precisely the problem with this afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – - To those who would choose to delete this article. Number of references has been doubled since inception of this AFD.  In addition, Politics Magazine has printed a hard copy feature on ProjectVirginia.  This piece will be available online at some point.  Perhaps this AFD should be extended for a time to allow for me to finish establishing notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – - The feature article is linked on the Politics Magazine Blog as well. I included this reference as well to increase notability.  I believe it is the fourth or fifth reference.Phenry09 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - my vote is still delete on the grounds that (1) none of the sources constitute "significant" coverage - I can't find any that rise above a single line mention but feel free to correct me, and (2) none of the sources attest to the notability of ProjectVirginia, only its existence. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Politics Magazine article is a feature article, perhaps you should read that one.Phenry09 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The blog entry is here. This actually does make a difference, it's much more in-depth than previous sources. Is the article in the magazine actually about ProjectVirginia exclusively, and how long is it?Prezbo (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure on length, asked a friend of mine to steal it from his professor and send it to me. In addition, the blog will be doing a follow up next week with some sort of post election roundup with data from the group.Phenry09 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am pretty sure that the blog post alone warrants notability.Phenry09 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Upon reading, the article makes no claim of notability for this PAC. It is not backed up by reliable sources, but by many unreliable ones. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 27 October 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.