Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Critical Badger


 * 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. Obvious votestaking is obvious Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Critical Badger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable wordpress blog only significant for one event, which would fall under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:COATRACK Meatsgains (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Defunct blog that isn't even notable for the event for which it claims notability - the sources in the Notability section of the article fail verification. 32.218.40.73 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I strongly believe this should NOT be deleted. This website had a unique significance in the study and creation of hyper-local journalism in Wisconsin and the United States. It was well regarded, awarded, and cited in traditional media (at the local, state, and national levels), which back in 2006 was an extremely rare occurrence. BlueOx003 — BlueOx003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- *Do not delete - This was an important website in the legal and journalism communities. It was also not a Wordpress "blog" in the traditional sense. I think it was just hosted via Wordpress, but it had a dedicated domain, it is not a "non-notable wordpress blog" and by 2015 standards would probably not even be considered a blog, but a journalism website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.190.65 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)  — 23.25.190.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this AfD.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edited this comment to state "Keep" in front of "Do not delete". I do not believe this misrepresents the original author in any possible way.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per my above statements, page is coatrack for a grade fraud scandal and that is it. Meatsgains (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This suggestion by Meatsgains violates Wikipedia's policy. Specifically: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." . This suggestion should be deleted as Meatsgains is the one who originally proposed the page's deletion, yet proceeded to repeat the recommendation on a separate bulleted line.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I PRODed the article because of its lack of notability. After IP 32.218.40.73 brought to my attention that the page had been proposed for deletion before, I decided to take it to AfD and the PROD tag was removed from the page. What's the issue? Meatsgains (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as per my above statements, page is not a coatrack for a grade fraud scandal. If you review the history of the page, the grade fraud scandal was not in the original page text and is not a focal point of its notability. This suggestion is empirically disproven with even a minute or two of further research.23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please find reliable sources confirming the blog's notability without also covering the scandal. If the page's focus is not on the scandal, and it is notable for other reasons, then finding sources shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise its WP:COATRACK or WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is addressed below. The grade fraud coverage is not the sole reason for its importance, but is one component that adds up to equal the totality of importance. Again, your WP:COATRACK suggestion is completely illogical as the basis for your claim--the grade fraud scandal--was not even in the original entry's page. At best this is a debate about notability and for local/legal journalism, this has significance. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the scandal was in the original page's entry. What matters is that currently, it makes up the body of the article and without it, the page would only have a lead. Meatsgains (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Not to make false accusations but it looks a little suspicious for both BlueOx003 and IP 23.25.190.65 to vote "Do not delete" when the community overwhelmingly uses the term "Keep"... Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am just following the template of this talk page. Wikipedia is criticized for being insular and hostile to outsiders. Why make things harder for people by adopting "community" (white, male community, I remind you ) norms? I would also add, "Not to make false accusations" followed by an accusation? You're intentionally ignoring my good faith response. This is further evidence the page should remain in existence. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were to follow the template on this page, you would have noticed that every editor supporting to keep the page votes "keep". But that's besides the point, I just said it looked suspicious and wasn't making an accusation. Your "good faith response" does not explain to users how or why the blog is an "important website in the legal and journalism communities." If you are so adamant about keeping the page, you'll need RS to back up your claims. Meatsgains (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You've ignored my point about why using "keep" is in line with democratizing knowledge, the entire point of Wikipedia and why I am adamantly opposed to deleting entries for websites that also did just that. More substantively, reposting from the BlueOx003 talk page: This was not a "Wordpress blog" by 2015 standards. The website was hosted via Wordpress, but it had its own dedicated domain. By 2015 standards, it would be considered a journalism website and in fact it was quite significant in the legal and journalism communities. The justification for deleting this page is inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability policy as it has been widely cited in national outlets like the U.S. News and World Report (already cited), ABA Law Journal (already cited), Wisconsin State Journal (already cited), Above the Law (which is not cited in the original Wikipage), FindLaw (also not cited in the original page, but it exists), Instapundit (which has its own Wikipedia page ) and that's just my quick research. I would further add that deleting this page is contrary to Wikipedia's interest in democratizing knowledge. Local journalism's significance is, by its very nature, harder to define in comparison to its national counterparts. By deleting significant "hyper-local" website entries, Wikipedia is further concentrating knowledge of American websites and journalism to a select, elite few. I strongly encourage editors to leave this page in existence. Thank you. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of "democratizing knowledge". We're trying to maintain consistency and continuity to help user navigate and read through pages for ease of reading. Meatsgains (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unsure - whilst obviously there is some evidence that the blog had some notability at one moment in time some years ago, I don't think the refs really suggest ongoing notability beyond, say, all the other winners of the "MPC 2007 Excellence in Journalism Awardees". Personally, I think the fact it was a wordpress blog is not really relevant (but the link to it on the page is obviously pointless if it is now defunct) providing there is enough support for notability. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "ongoing notability" the standard? The website's significance is mostly historical, but that's a byproduct of the changing models of local journalism. I say "changing" with some snark because local journalism is dying across the United States and is being replaced by digital outlets and communities . This is what makes the original article's website significant. It was one of the first in an era where only large national publications were receiving attention online. "Ongoing notability" might be debatable, but it was a sufficiently notable website.BlueOx003 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I can accept that some people think it is important for the reasons you give, but the refs on the page are not helping this cause. I guess what I was poorly expressing above was an outsiders attempt to see whether there was enough to see this news website as historically important and notable enough for inclusion rather than all of the other winners of the MPC 2007 prize (which is given as a ref). As others said, it seemed to have one important scoop - if you say that it had a further important cultural and historical role, I think you need better refs to show it. But I've changed my vote above on the basis that I could be wrong on this. JMWt (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I loved The Critical Badger.   He really had guts to break stories no one else would touch, including the Department of Political Science catastrophe.   The grade fraud fiasco is simply stunning.   The UW administation kept the mainstream media from covering this shattering scandal.   It is pages like The Critical Badger that make Wikipedia worth having.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.189.82.66 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, again only one significant event. Meatsgains (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These flippant responses are not helpful. You've driven this quest to delete from the start and your position is clear. But a number of national news links have been cited on this page, beyond one (significant) scandal. Deleting this page privileges elite urban thinking that smaller, rural American areas are less significant--their journalism, people, controversies, public affairs. The world does not revolve around NY, Chicago, DC.BlueOx003 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

here has been superb! We need this vital entry on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.199.82 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes.   This is a great web page.   The coverage of the grade fraud debacle


 * Keep -- I have watched this debate and conclude the article should be kept. All of the above comments make good points. Let us now apply the Wikipedia rules.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1.	It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2.	It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The question we must ask is it this page meets the general notability guidelines or the criteria in subject-specific guidelines. I argue that this entry meets BOTH. However, for the sake of time and argument, I will address the more specific rule: “criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline[s],” and more specifically “Wikipedia:Notability (web)” rules. There is no debate that this entry meets the second standard and would not be excluded under “What Wikipedia is not,” so I will not address this in detail.

According to Wikipedia's Notability (web) page :


 * Decisions based on verifiable evidence:
 * When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

This has been proven through the numerous links to Above the Law, Findlaw, ABA Law Journal, and U.S. News and World Report. The entry’s website played a significant role in the dissemination of higher education rankings and debates.

Strangely, one of the coatrack criticisms has been that this entry is used to discuss only a grade fraud scandal. That is not clearly not the case. It is one area in which this website found notoriety, yes, but it is not the only example.

Furthermore, Wikipedia clearly states that we should not err against smaller websites.


 * However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

It is unusual (and thus notable) for a local journalism website to receive consistent and wide-spread national news coverage for their work. This is even more notable because journalists have only recently become more accepting of citing smaller outlets, local journalists, and individual websites. This entry’s website was a pioneer of the local journalism/blogsophere during the end of the last decade.

Wikipedia states : web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
 * •	The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations

This has been established above. It was published in traditional press (Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), online press (Findlaw, Above the Law, Instapundit), and magazine press (U.S. News and World Report, ABA Law Journal).


 * •	The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

This entry’s website was named the best website in the state of Wisconsin in 2007 (already cited on page) and was named a finalist in a national competition hosted by some of the most well-known journalists and online bloggers in the world. I think under this element, the entry clearly merits being kept.

Finally, I am dismayed to see some of the above criticism of supporters being cast as an argument to ignore their position to keep the website. Wikipedia is clear that this should not be grounds for deletion as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ignoring supporting posts because of formatting errors and use of synonyms for “Keep” runs contrary to Wikipedia’s stated policies. It is also unnecessarily legalistic, and in my view, suggests opponents to this entry page (one in particular) are using obfuscation tactics to further their original goal of deleting this important page.

Conclusion: This entry meets all of Wikipedia’s notability standards. This was a uniquely active local journalism website that achieved national attention for a variety of higher education-related stories. That alone is grounds for keeping the entry, according to Wikipedia policy. However, this entry meets even higher burdens of notability, as the website received national awards from well-known organizations and publications.

Finally, Wikipedia plainly states its goal of promoting the notoriety of smaller websites. This is one of those examples. Deleting this page violates that stated goal because it errs on the side of larger websites as being the only notable subjects on the Internet. By its very definition, this entry covers a local journalism website. It is understandable it may then create debate about notability. However, this website objectively meets Wikipedia’s standards, and subjectively, is one of only a few local journalism websites during its time period that made an impact on national conversations. Keep this entry.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails General Notability Guideline. Zero sources to support significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have carefuly examined every source in the article, every source cited here, sources cited in user talk, and I've done online searching. Zilch. Some sources don't mention Critical Badger, and the sources that do mention it merely mention it in passing. It is well established that passing mentions such as "As reported in X, I will cover story Y" only supports the Notability of Y, not X.


 * Regarding the the sudden influx of editors / IP addresses with few or no edits outside this topic: At Wikipedia we pride ourselves on our open invitation for anyone and everyone to participate. However Wikipedia discussions are not votes. We will carefully consider all of the evidence and arguments you have brought to the table, but we make our decisions on the basis of policy. Attempting to vote WP:ILIKEIT (I loved The Critical Badger and This is a great web page) carry no weight. Attempting to explain that Critical Badger was "important" is only slightly better, but will still fail unless you can show that independent reliable sources have published significant coverage of Critical Badger itself. Critical Badger doesn't need to be the central topic of that coverage, but we need sources with a significant number of sentences saying things about Critical Badger. I do appreciate the effort of 2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 to apply policy, I merely ask him or her to identify two reliable sources that provide the most significant discussion of Critical Badger itself. Finally, I particularly chastise 23.25.190.65 for a grossly inappropriate and utterly random insinuation of racial/gender discrimination. There is absolutely nothing about this article or this discussion to justify such a leap.


 * The sudden influx of IP's and other editors with few-or-no-edits-outside this topic strongly suggests someone has WP:CANVASSed this discussion somewhere off of Wikipedia, trying to bring in allies to stack the "vote". This is not a vote, and that sort of behavior can lead to sanctions. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's policy, an entry needs to meet EITHER the General Notability Guideline OR Subject-Specific Guidelines. The Subject-Specific Guideline for websites includes two considerations, one of which is "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." I think that has been fully established with links. So before getting a content analysis, it meets the website-specific guidelines for notability. As Wikipedia notes, "web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria." So only one criterion must be met. Thus, before going forward, this entry meets Wikipedia standards and should not be deleted, even if others have concerns about the sources covering the subject.


 * That said, it is inaccurate to write that there are "zero sources to support" coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The notability of the website is that it's actions created/sparked larger coverage of higher education and legal topics. Naturally that means sources will note X to report on Y. That *is* proof of notoriety. For example, the website broke stories about academic rankings. So when larger outlets like Above the Law cover it, they analyzed the Critical Badger coverage before moving on to their own interpretation. Wikipedia's policy is NOT that notable stories about sources must be full-length pieces about the source itself. That is NOT Wikipedia's stated policy. Deleting this entry because of the source coverage also violates Wikipedia's policy to err on the side of trying to protect smaller websites.


 * As for your other points, I don't have much to say. For the random IP address "I love it" comment, you also have established Wikipedia monikers violating Wikipedia policies, as addressed above (cannot propose deletion then put up a bullet calling upon others to delete). But this is beside the point. BlueOx003 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provide a list of sources confirming this blog's notability aside from their single "grade fraud" exposure. The only sources I am seeing are, as Alsee pointed out, just a brief mention. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been listed, numerous times, but I will repeat myself (and repeating others who have posted) in response to your concern.


 * First, we have the grade fraud scandal. That is accepted. Moving on.


 * Second, the national recognition for quality of reporting and research. The Milwaukee Press Club is objectively one of the most respected press clubs in America and has been around since 1885 . Other national awards/recognition include being named among one of the nation's best alternative media outlets in the U.S. News and World Report and recognition from a large, national organization, reported by one of the most famous websites in the blogosphere . As previously stated, according to Wikipedia's notability policy on websites, this qualifies on face as "notable" and no further analysis of notoriety should be necessary. However, for the sake of argument, I will continue.


 * Third, we have established one major newsworthy event and several national recognitions. But the higher education rankings stories are clearly misunderstood by some posting on this page. This was a "hyper-local" website, making it remarkable that it could influence national news stories about higher education topics. When one suggests these were "passing references" they miss the point. The action is that this website found ways to create a national debate about higher education rankings and frequently "broke" news stories about their release in advance of what national news publications (like the U.S. News and World Report) wanted. Some proof, which you requested, includes the Above the Law and FindLaw articles, both of which have been linked to already and are easily accessible. Suggesting these are just passing references indicates the Wikipedia editors misunderstand how alternative media outlets and local journalism work and the important part of this Wikipedia entry. It is almost unheard of for small, local journalist websites to move national conversations, so the fact they were happening is itself a major form of notoriety.


 * So we have a website that had national recognition for the quality and substance of its content. This included years of reporting on higher education topics, especially college rankings, on top of a grade fraud scandal. This meets, and exceeds, Wikipedia's standards for website notoriety.


 * This is further met because of Wikipedia's stated policy of seeking to recognize smaller websites (stated above). To delete this entry runs completely contrary to the Wikipedia goal, and in my view, further privileges large, national websites, at the expense of local journalists. That is why people like myself are so passionate about this issue and entry. Highlighting successful local journalism is critically important to the industry and for the promotion of free speech, democracy, and alternative media outlet reporting.BlueOx003 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your in depth explanation and providing the sources I requested. It definitely helps. One thing to note, the FindLaw source you referenced is a blog not a RS. It looks like The Critical Badger blog gained notoriety for not one but two events: 1.) the grade fraud scandal and 2.) leaking the US News Law School Rankings. I do find it highly suspicious that once this AfD was submitted, we had 4 IPs vote the same day in favor of keeping the page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This entry meets and exceeds Wikipedia's notability standards. Historically significant alternative media outlet. Major events include: 1. Grade fraud scandal (already cited); 2. breaking school rankings (already cited), 3. student activism coverage (this has not been fully appreciated by the previous comments); and 4. The notable awards from multiple national media organizations (already noted). This is way more than necessary to be a sufficiently notable website. As has been repeatedly mentioned, if the editors are "undecided" about this page despite the clear evidence this is a notable entry, Wikipedia very plainly states its intention to give special consideration to small websites when evaluating notoriety. I know these are not "votes" with a winner/loser, but if editors need some kind of "tie breaker" to tip the scales, that should push the decision toward keeping this page.BobDole3434 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — BobDole3434 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this AfD.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur, especially with this: "As has been repeatedly mentioned, if the editors are "undecided" about this page despite the clear evidence this is a notable entry, Wikipedia very plainly states its intention to give special consideration to small websites when evaluating notoriety. I know these are not "votes" with a winner/loser, but if editors need some kind of "tie breaker" to tip the scales, that should push the decision toward keeping this page."BlueOx003 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - existing citations don't show it meets notability standards, and searches turned up little in support. News had single passing mention, Newspapers had zero, all but one of the mentions in books appear not to be about this subject (and the single mention is a trivial one), zip in Scholar, single non-in depth hit in Highbeam.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:47, 20 November 2015 (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.