Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose


 * 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. Let me preface that due to the massive changes made during the course of this AfD, deleting it per speedy crit. G4 as some below recommended would be inappropriate.

Going through the references in the article as of this revision, we have a total of nine refs, five of which have no initial connection to the source and may be considered secondary. The Washington Post only establishes background info and does not mention the subject. The MyDD article references the Prospect article, and does not mention the subject. The Huffington Post is being used to verify that a writer has blogged at the Motley Moose, among other publications.

The remaining two references are a DailyKos article linking to a Motley Moose story, and the Prospect article; as demonstrated, these simply do not meet the non-trivial requirement as per the general notability guideline (aside: blogs should not be immediately thrown away as sources as some suggested, but due to the general nature of a lack of fact-checking, blogs are expected to meet the criteria of WP:SPS. Editors would be expected to prove the reliability of the author.) Furthermore, the article does not meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB--being written by notable people or interviewing notable people is not part of the criteria; to quote the essay to put it succinctly, it's not inherited from them.

On the AfD talk page, S Marshall brings up valid points that WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IMPERFECT could support the inclusion of this article, and also invokes WP:IAR. However I see no indication in the discussion below and on talk that there is consensus to exempt the article from all the other guidelines along these lines. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

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

Disputed repost-speedy. Previously deleted via AfD as failing to establish notability; subsequent deletion review withdrawn by the nominator, who is also the page creator of both instances. References used still consist of the site itself, trivial or incidental mentions, and all too often no mention. Fails to establish notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Previous AfD discussion
 * Deletion review discussion
 * A breakdown of the currently cited references
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —9Nak (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep until reviewed by Wikiproject Blogging 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 submission; but at this point, it hardly matters. 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 on 22-FEB. 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's own entry on blogs 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 and the other notability guidelines (that is, the sources rather than the specific method). 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.
 * I would also point out that simply hitting "Ctrl-F" and searching for the article's namesake to show up more than once does not constitute an actual refutation of it as a source, as appears to have occurred. The {{Prospect Magazine]] article in particular fits this notion; it would be the equivalent of a long article on the evolution of collaborative encyclopediac work, with the article culminating in discussing the founding of Wikipedia. I fail to see how this is inappropriate.
 * 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- but how do you quote the fuzzy picture of a diary title from a blog on Comedy Central?). 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; a case that is more than able to be made, given the chance.
 * 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 operates essentially as an unincorporated 501(c), per the business statues of the Commonweatlth of Virginia- not the United Kingdom, as was implied- 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.

Rather than allow this article to be worked on in it's previous incarnation, it was aimply deleted. It was my understanding that, regardless of the merits of that discussion, it needed to be deleted, worked on, and possibly reposted. Furthermore, this article is entirely within the scope of the Wikiproject Blogging; we are currently in the process of assessing some 140 other entries on Wikipedia on blogs that are currently unassessed, and another 50 or so that need various stages of work. This article will be submitted, just as any other, to that review process, and if it is found to be not-notable by the Wikiproject editors, it will be deleted. We are an impartial group. Please allow us to do our work.

Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC) {{collapse bottom}}


 * Strong Keep For those skipping the above breakdown, strong keep. References are notable and within the standards of WP:Web and WikiProject Blogging. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I voted delete in the last AfD thread; I see some major progress has been made on this article, and that it does indeed fall into the scope of the Wikipedia blogging project. I am convinced that this isn't simply a vanity blog or a promotional article; the number of notable contributors to the cite certainly vouches for that. Also, Ks64q2, last time I thought that you were the owner of the blog and it was about you; I did not pay enough attention, and that is inexcusable. Please accept my apologies. Thank you. 12.40.50.1 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification In order to try and head off this discussion going where the last one did; I think the references from DailyKos are valid, and I understand your argument behind the TalkingPointsMemo source; it's an interesting point, but I don't know how to apply it here. I understand why you referenced the articles that don't specifically talk about the website, in order to establish the website's editors are notable. I think there is plenty of precedence for that notability rubbing off on the website in question for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. I also agree that US Congressmen and embattled Zibabwean politicians generally don't just sit down for anyone, and your arguments behind why you link to the website from the article. I guess the biggest thing would be those two print articles; there's no online evidence they exist, which shouldn't preclude you from using them as a resource, but it seems to be an issue here. Do you think you could scan them, or perhaps fax them to an administrator? I hate to ask you to do that, since I think it would be unprecedented for a Wikipedia entry to have to do that. I personally am somewhat bemused both sides are reacting this strongly. I thought before you were the website's owner or article's creator, but seeing the logs from last time I note neither circumstance is correct. You and 9Nak seem to have some sort of a person grudge going, and it doesn't reflect well on either of you. Still, I would say a definite keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Thank you for taking the time to look through my comments. 9Nak and I are just a little tense, but we had a chat and understand we're both only interested in what's best for Wikipedia, and kind-of had to agree to disagree, though we're still working things out, hence our strong reactions. I apologize for how it makes us appear, we really don't intend any ill-will toward each other or the process. No, I'm neither the website creator nor the article's original creator; I suppose I am very verbal in my support because it was the first article I tried to rescue from deletion, and did not feel like I was given a "fair shake" to make things better the last go-round. As for scanning/faxing the articles, well, I understand where you're coming from- it's a little unnerving. In the scope of my work at WikiProject Blogging, I've seen plenty of articles on blogs kept with incredibly less than this one, and I can't imagine anyone having to fax an unpaid Wikipedia administrator proof an article exists, especially considering the "Assume Good Faith" policy. But if there's precedent to it, then I will consider taking the hard copies down to the local Office Depot and fax it, as long as it's not international- crap, the local faxes cost a buck a sheet. But it makes me really wary, I will admit. Seems to be broaching the scope of what a community repository of knowledge is supposed to be about, and dampens the spirit and cooperative environment of Wikipedia. Just my $0.02. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks, man, I appreciate it. Join us at WikiProject Blogging if you're interested in helping on other articles; there are about two hundred unassessed Blogging articles with problems far more serious than this one, we could use a hand sorting them all out. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete advert for non-notable, unverifiable subject, per previous AfD (which would have survived review were it not for author's withdrawal just prior to a negative result) and nom's helpful reference analysis. -- samj in out 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response having perused the [WP:NOTADVERTISING] reference I really fail to see how this article about a democratic blog could be construed as advertising in any shape or form. Perhaps this is related to some misunderstanding displayed in your comment below, but no such advertising links exist in the salient entry, or its links. --Peterjukes (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Also, sir, this seems a bit disingenuous... it was explained to me the deletion review never serves as a further judgment on the merit of an article being deleted or not, merely to enact the consensus from the original AfD, which was delete in that case; though the consensus was fatally flawed by misjudgments, some of which were made once again in the nomination of this article for deletion. Thus, the administrator noted it would be more prudent to withdraw the nomination, fix the requisite errors, and resubmit it at a later date. You and 9Nak both seem to be using this, however, as a cudgel against the article, that the review was withdrawn- suggesting bad faith on the part of the article's creator. If this is the case, sir, it is certainly unacceptable and has no place in this discussion; it will only produce another fatally-flawed consensus. Considering your unprovoked personal attack on me in the next comment down, I'm certain you can understand my concern. However, I must assume that you were unaware of these circumstances when you wrote your above statement; no harm, no foul. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ks64q2 also recently created family centered care which looks like an advert for this org and has similar issues (unreliable and self-published sources that fail verification). User would be well advised to consider the intent of the relevant policies rather than wikilawyering (as above). -- samj in out 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Sir, I know it's within Wikipedian policy to assume good faith, however, I feel your comments here stretch that policy significantly. I say this because you make it obvious by your actions that you've neither perused the AfD article's namesake, the arguments listed above addressing the concerns listed for AfD, and the Family centered care article you cite in suggesting my purpose on Wikipedia is to simply create self-advertising entries. First of all, on the FMC page, you actually chose the one link included specifically because their name popped up first in Google for "family centered care"; it's not referenced anywhere else in the article, and if you'd actually visited that website, you see that argument has no merit. Furthermore, since "family centered care" is an intangible method of providing health care, I don't see how it's possible to advertise it... it would be like creating an article on Pediatrics and then finding a Peds clinic somewhere and saying it was an advert for them. Yet you accuse me of "wikilawyering"? Sir, I strongly decry this behavior; it certainly has no place in this setting. If you are not willing to discuss the matter at hand, I suggest you bring that to my talk page, rather than espouse these unfounded accusations in a public forum. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

 * Strong Keep I think the Article fits within the guidlines of WikiProject Blogging. The nominator's notations on the references were properly addressed by article's author.68.201.84.95 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.84.95 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  — 68.201.84.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete- I cant see where this blog has been given any notability in real, mainstream WP:RS as opposed to internets sites. Sticky Parkin 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject blogging- they can think what they like, with all respect, this doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines for this encyclopedia as a whole. Could I make a wikiproject and get my mates there to try and enforce our own standards by voting keep in an AfD please, and have that define the content of what seeks to be an encyclopedia about notable subjects.:) Sticky Parkin 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Heh, I see what you mean by the WikiProject Blogging standards, but that project has been around for some years now, and is officially sanctioned, not just an attempt to create and meatpuppet articles into existence. Heh. Also, I'd ask why sites like DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo, even though they are internet-based, don't count as notable, especially considering that there are more than a few major print publications wrapping up their printing presses and heading online solely. Wouldn't you say? Otherwise, thanks for the input, man! I appreciate it! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, which is why they have articles on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely; the suggestion, however, seems to be that they are not notable since they are web-based, thus the references from those sites are not acceptable for this article. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Could you elaborate your specific problems, so I can address them? Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of this AfD discussion, where 9Nak has told you why the current references in the article are not reliable sources/do not even mention the blog. I've done several searches for sources but can find nothing to save this article. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, 9Nak and I seem to have some personal acrimony here and we are considering both withdrawing from this discussion rather than let that interfere with the judgment of the article. For my own personal reference, however, to better educate myself and for the article's references, could you tell me something in particular you disagree with? 9Nak has suggested, for instance, DailyKos isn't a notable reference, which you seem to have disputed yourself above. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the third time: kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have done neither of those things. 9Nak (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies; perhaps you could suggest why reference #7, for instance, is incidental, if not for the source. It specifically credits the article's namesake several times, and was a featured article on the site. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's simple, this article isn't the sole focus of any third party reliable sources as required per WP:N. There's lots of puffery going on here but nothing that shows how the blog itself has been the object of discussion. I highly suspect a conflict of interest with the ardent creator and defender.  Them  From  Space  20:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response You err, sir. This article is the sole focus of several unquestionable third-party sources, and the article's defender was not the article's creator (please note the addendum at the beginning of this article), merely a member of Wikiproject Blogging who happened across it in it's former form and worked very hard to improve it to save it from deletion; nothing more, nothing less. Not sure how ardent defense automatically equals conflict of interest, however. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people from that wikiproject have contributed to this AfD, I suspect. I'd be interested as to the result/votes when hopefully a more representative sample of the wider community contribute.  As to sources, there's been no real world press, it's not even once mentioned in any articles hosted on the equivalent of the website of the Birmingham Mail, let alone the New York Times.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't yet see sufficient reliable sources for me to recommend a keep, but I'll hang fire on my !vote for the moment to see if any appear.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Apologies if there's a lack of acronyms or wikilayering in my response, but I'm coming at notability from a slightly more populistic viewpoint. As the feature writer of the cited Prospect piece on the importance of community blogging during the 2008 Elections I think some of the attitudes to 'print sources' and notability in this thread to be short sighted.

Political blogs like MYDD and Kos are redefining political discourse, activism and advocacy. The Prospect article was cross cited in several newspapers in the UK, as well as wikipedia's own entry on MYDD

I came across Motley Moose during the writing of that piece, and it represents the next phase of emergent community run blogs with no top down control or proprietorial ownership. I have no financial interest in the site (as apparently no one does) it is clearly one of the exciting new political blogs to have emerged in the wake of Obama's election. Personally, I rarely write on MYDD or DailyKos now as a result.

If the vote goes for delete I hope the current entry is stored somewhere, because given the current trends you'll certainly be reinstating it before long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)  — Peterjukes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Are any of the links to major newspapers working? I clicked on the ones to BBC News and the Huffington Post, and there was no mention of this at all there.   D r e a m Focus  01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Response the links to BBC and Huffington Post provide examples of three notable contributors, Denise Oliver Velez, Dawn Teo and Michelle Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC) The Cavalier Daily is not a reliable source because it is a student-run newspaper. Student-run newspapers have not received the fact-checking that reliable sources, such as The Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc. have received. It has not received editorial  I did mention that the DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, but I did not say that they produced reliable sources. According to WP:SPS, blogs are usually not reliable sources. Per  above, please don't put words into my mouth. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to erase my comment, but since you responded to it, I'll let it be. If all the contributors are such notable writers, then working together on something, makes that notable. I say *Keep. Has something like this happened before? If not, that event in itself is notable.  D r e a m Focus  01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Having followed the spread of political activism on the internet, this spontaneous gathering together of notable and active bloggers in a genuine, non-proprietorial political site is exception as far as I know, and certainly notable in the circumstances of the Obama campaign and the influence of on-line advocacy and fundraising. This historical fact alone is more important than any individual contributor, or indeed cross references in the print media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, notability is not inherited. Second, the contributors might be notable, but none have articles on Wikipedia. Third, since the news articles do not even mention this blog, it cannot be verified that these writers have contributed to this blog . Cunard (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're mistaken there- Peter Jukes, Joe Trippi for contributors, and Roy Bennett and Tom Perriello for two interviewees. Also, the Prospect Magazine article certainly mentions the blog, as do the offline sources. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Prospect Magazine article only contains a passing mention of the Motley Moose &mdash; one sentence. That one sentence doesn't even mention the notable contributors/notable interviewees. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you concede several contributors are in wikipedia. As for this new point, I must point out that, as the author of the Prospect piece, that it was penned a month before publication in September, there could be no mention of the other contributors because the site was only then being talked about. What was notable about it then was the way it arose in response to the primary wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one further point. You call the Motley Moose reference in the Prospect Magazine article a 'passing reference' but that term is very misleading. The reference to Motley Moose occupies the whole last paragraph, and is the culmination and conclusion of the article. --Peterjukes (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Echoing the preceding comment, I would like to note that the context of the article means quite a bit, and that simply judging a source based on the number of times one is mentioned is a pretty illogical way to rate a source, especially when very obviously ignoring the content. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore the content when I rated the source. In the article, the only context related to this topic is some background information about a group of people who "have had enough" of the "Republican trolls"; then the author of the magazine article, presumably, writes "They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them!" That's not a neutral source. Neither of you has provided any reliable sources to prove this blog's notability per WP:WEB. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a neutral source, however, as the article predated the author's involvement in the site. Certainly, if it had been written now, you could argue quite successfully it's not a neutral source; however, the article helps to establish why the article's namesake is notable through it's purpose, which is very unique. Thus, the entire article needs to be taken into account, not just the last paragraph. It's describing the conditions that led to the creation of this one-of-a-kind political blog. Furthermore, you suggest no reliable sources were available per WP:WEB, except that you mentioned earlier yourself that "DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, which is why they have articles on Wikipedia.". Furthermore, The Cavalier Daily is also a notable source, and as we've established now, so is Prospect Magazine. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The magazine article is not a neutral source because the author was writing about a blogging website that he was planning to join. Furthermore, the magazine article is about an assortment of political topics; the article was not exclusively about The Motley Moose. In fact, The Motley Moose seemed to be added in as an afterthought.
 * Again, you're incorrect; the article was not written about a site the author intended the join; as it has been explained above, the article's namesake was discovered in the course of research, not as an afterthought, and is the culmination of the significant events noted in said article. As to suggesting The Cavalier Daily is not reliable because it hasn't received the "fact checking" that the other publications you mention have, you then trail off on "It has not received editorial..."- not sure where you were going there. However, the original AfD never questioned the reliability of this source, it was largely established to be bona fide. As to your comments, sir, I simply point out your own words; I don't supplement them with my own. However, you seem to be retreating back into suggesting the article be judged strictly on the letter of the policy you quote, rather than the spirit- perhaps indicate precisely why those references are un-notable, in detail- and you certainly have seemed to ignore the counterpoints made in the "strong keep" essay above, as you are continuing to make judgments based off of an inaccurate representation of the events that have transpired. This is a very complex issue, however, so they are easy to miss; I certainly don't begrudge you that in any way. You'll have to excuse my somewhat biting nature at times; it seems like to me that you've changed your story several times in response to my counterpoints, rather than address them directly (such as when you incorrectly suggested no Wikipedia articles existed on any of the aforementioned topics, then ignored the correct to that statement. However, I understand you're simply working from the "Assume Good Faith" and want to improve the Wikipedian community, nothing more and nothing less. Since you seem very motivated, I would ask for your help in ; there are approximately 200 articles that need work and review on the subject of blogs, and we need people with your motivation to assist our team. Shall I include you as a member on the project page? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in blogs, so I have no interest in joining WikiProject Blogs. I am withdrawing from this conversation because I (and several other editors) have clearly explained why the sources do not suffice. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, well, I'm very sorry to hear that! I thought since you were so vigorously participating here, you would certainly be interested in contributing further to a worthy WikiProject about blogging. I am sad to see you depart, as you left several of my concerns unaddressed, your assertion to the contrary nonwithstanding. Have a wonderful evening, or what's left of it, and thank you for your input! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insignificant coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Any specific complaints you can discern- which references, in particular, contribute to deny proper coverage of notability? Ks64q2 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Contribute to deny proper coverage of notability"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, just was wondering which references you had a specific problem with that would constitute "insignificant" coverage, rather than appropriate coverage. Sorry, it was worded a little strangely. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

 * Delete for lack of sources meeting the notability criteria for web content. Ks64q2, this is     I've pointed you towards those and asked you to clarify how this article meets them, and so far you've ignored me. I'm extremely disappointed that you've chosen to recreate this article without any discernable changes as far as sourcing is concerned.  one  brave  monkey  06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And whilst we're at it; Peterjukes, this is exactly the sort of activity I warned you against, given your obvious conflict of interest with this article.  one brave  monkey  09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response thanks for your comments Onebravemonkey. I read the guidelines, and took very much to heart what you said about not editing articles that involved me, even in the spirit of correction. But here, in this AfD discussion, I'm not editing the article. Most my comments are about misrepresentations of the Prospect Article. To whit:
 * 1. I have no financial interest in the site, and discovered it in the process of writing the article. The notability of the site comes from precisely its origin out of the primary wars, and what I described as the 'first big political battle of the blogosphere'. To correct a misrepresentation of my print article hardly strikes me as a conflict of interest.
 * 2. I corrected the impression that the reference to Motley Moose was 'in passing'. It wasn't, it was mentioned in conclusion.
 * 3. Now I stand accused of having written the Prospect piece out of self interest because I was planning to join the site. This is frankly ludicrous, and shows no understanding of the rigours of writing for Britain's top philosophical and political monthly. With its large editorial staff and reputation to maintain, there is no way that Prospect would publish a 4,000 word piece like this because an author wanted to puff a website he might like to join in the future. The article was commission and published because of its notability, a notability which has been confirmed since by the number of conferences I have been invited to talk on the matter, and the number of political organisations hoping to emulate the mainly American phenomenon of political blogging in the UK. Short of demanding some kind of apology from the author of those damaging remarks, my only alternative is to correct the false impressions where they take root. Surely wikipedia understands the rights of the accused and the possibility of offering a counterstatement.


 * Though I understand better the protective rules about editing wikipedia articles in which one has an interest, correcting false impressions of other sources seems to me to be a different issue. I commented in good faith on a separate journalistic piece I had written, and if this is somehow a 'conflict of interest' would like guidance how one should respond in cases like this. As you will see I have had no input into the piece itself, following your strict cautions.--Peterjukes (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Response Ahh, sir, yes. Nice to see you here again. On my end, I'm extremely disappointed you seem to have ignored any of the arguments brought forward and seem suggest a lack of good faith on both my part, and the part of "Peterjukes". In the last AfD, I told you the consensus was flawed, and I see that you still seem to be operating under those flawed principles. If you have any detailed responses to the counterpoints made above, that more than address the comments you brought up specifically, please, by all means, share them. Otherwise, I would suggest you orient yourself with them before we proceed. However, I am glad you've added your voice to the mix here; this sort of community referendum is what Wikipedia is all about. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You assume that I haven't read and understood your arguments... I read them in the first AFD, and in the DRV and again above, but none seem to address the concerns that I have raised. You must realise that editors here have attempted to assist in supporting your effort (as far as sourcing is concerned) and have failed... please don't then continue to ignore our attempts to do this on the assumption that we are "flawed", "dishonest" and "disingenuous", and certainly don't then accuse me of not assuming good faith. It would do you very well to listen to what myself and other editors are saying here, not as criticism but as pointers to how you can improve the article. If you believe that this "community referendum" is what WP is about, then why have you so-far ignored the advice presented to you in two seperate forums, but then carried on regardless? As you can probably tell, I'm fast approaching the end of my good humour over this and am frankly sick-and-tired of repeating myself, but I'll have one last go regardless and ask you to please read the following (copied from when I originally wrote to you following the first AFD) as it pretty much sums up what you need to convince me of before I would consider changing my vote?
 * As far as the article is concerned, I have tried to find detailed sources that refer to the article in the manner required by the notability guidelines for web content, but cannot find those that meet that criteria. In future discussions I would strongly recommend that you think about how best to meet these. Essentially they are as follows:
 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (This is probably the most important one of the three.)
 * 2. The website has won a well-known, independent award from a respected source.
 * 3. The content is distributed by a well-respected, independent third-party publisher.
 * These are by no means the only criteria to meet, but in my opinion they are the most relevant to the website. I will keep trying to find sources, but I have to concur with my fellow editors that it seems as though deletion is the best option for the moment. (This obviously doesn't mean that the article can't be recreated once better sources are found, but i must warn you that simple recreation is liable for speedy deletion under criteria G4: Recreation of deleted material.
 * Thanks, and good luck,  one brave  monkey  16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Alright, sir, let's tackle this in detail, shall we? We'll take the first point you make, since the other two are largely subjective and the criteria for judging so would largely be up to the whims of each individual judging.
 * "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." DailyKos, Prospect Magazine, The Cavalier Daily, would, at the very least, meet all of those criteria. CVille Weekly, while certainly a published source, perhaps less so. The arguments behind the supposed non-independence of the source from Prospect Magazine are incorrect. In fact, it was largely thought that rather than simply being a member of the Wikiproject Blogging team, I was actually the author of that article, and/or the owner of the site referenced by the article! In fact, the nominator of this AfD didn't even bother to correct those mistakes, even after repeated attempts to explain that in the first AfD. Furthermore, the author was independent of the source at the time the article was written. Period. The timeline supports that entirely, this is not a fact subject to review. Now, you say you've read the counterpoints I've presented above about the notability of the site, but you seem to be sticking to this one and only argument- sources alone. That is why I suggest this strikes of disingenuity, sir, because you give lip service to the other arguments I make while returning to solely judging this article on that alone. If you think my other points are invalid, fine, that's certainly your right- but then debunk them in detail, rather than to airly dismiss them offhand, and explain why what I judge as being important is less meaningful than your interpretation. Far from being disgruntled, however, I am impressed at the depth and amount of time you and the others are willing to spend on this one article trying to help improve it and work for Wikipedia. I am actually quite flattered, you are all obviously passionate people, and to take this much time out of your day to be a part of this discussion is very humbling. I await your response, sir. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: I'm sticking to this one and only argument because notability is a key point for inclusion on WP and, as yet, it has not been proven. The two sources that I can check (DailyKos and Prospect Magazine) do not meet the above criteria, as they are trivial mentions of the site. In the first the mention is a brief quotation that is not expanded upon, and the second is a re-print of an article written by the site's creator that only briefly mentions the blog at the end. I would say that's passable for the creator's WP article, but not for this blog. I can see what you've done with sourcing details of the blog's contributors, but only one briefly mentions the blog. The main issue I have with the sources is that none of them are specifically about the blog, rather just off-hand mentions, if that. But I'm afraid that pales by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference since the last time this came to AFD and DRV... that isn't good at all. Instead of arguing whether source X proves notability, find one that actually does without a shadow of a doubt!
 * Your original essay brings up issues regarding whether the blog meets certain traffic criteria, Google Tests and various alleged bad-faith opinions from other editors, not to mention another allegation that the AFD was carried out improperly. None of these points actually deal with the article itself and whether it is sourced. You could be right in your assertion that this site is important, frankly I don't see enough evidence to back that up and that's why I return to the notability guidelines as they are the way to prove it. I'm solely interested with whether the article meets the relevant policies and guidelines...any discussions about any other editor's actions, whether good or bad faith, are simply by-the-by.  one brave  monkey  17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Response: I had to look twice before I realised that this remark was referring to my Prospect piece: "the second is a re-print of an article written by the site's creator that only briefly mentions the blog at the end."


 * Onebravemonkey, perhaps this is the source of the problem here. Are you somehow under the impression that I'm the creator of Motley Moose? Is it not clear by the timeline of my article, and the details about the site itself, that there is no one creator, and I wrote about the Moose weeks before it was launched to the public? If so, let me make this clear here. Below I point out that the idea that Prospect would publish a 4000 word piece of puffery to let me somehow advertise my own site is not only an editorial impossibility, it's a damaging and baseless accusation which explains why this discussion is so heated, and why a generally well sourced and solid article is receiving such flak.


 * If you will all accept the editorial realities I will now recuse myself. But I need to reiterate this, to clarify some glaring misconceptions


 * 1. The Prospect piece was an independent feature about political blogging in the US during the primary wars, and the fall out of that. The story itself was very notable, and Motley Moose a notable outcome of the conflict.
 * 2. I was commissioned to write the piece by Prospect before any such site existed. The site was in development by the time I finished the article, hence the timeline of mentioning it at the end.
 * 3. I only started blogging on that site (I still do on MYDD and Dkos) when the piece was published. Had I known that writing comments on a site that gets several thousand page hits a day and has hundreds of contributors would retrospectively cast doubts on the independence of my Prospect piece, I would not have done it.
 * 4. I am emphatically not the owner or creator of Motley Moose, just one of over two hundred commentators since September 2008, and one of many thousand readers. --Peterjukes (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Well, Peterjukes certainly hit on some of the issues I was trying to clarify. We are this far into this discussion for a second time, and yet you (and everyone else!) from the first AfD refuse to correct yourselves on the source of this article, the Prospect Magazine piece, the article's namesake, and the motivations behind this. Perhaps you can understand why there is a certain amount of frustration and the perception that you are not approaching this argument with good will assumed; upon repeated correction, nobody has yet admitted their view on this issue was flawed. This was one of the major reasons the first AfD was fatally flawed, and it was corrected even there- but that didn't stop the nominator of this AfD from incorrectly stating it again in this discussion. Furthermore, your criteria for judging the DailyKos article is, frankly, completely erroneous. Take a look at the relative importance of that article that DailyKos uses to judge it, and you'll see it was one of the highest-hitting pieces of the entire election season. Considering the traffic and reach of DailyKos is eons above most print publications- during the time the article was published, DailyKos was in the top 3,000 of all websites worldwide, garnering millions of hits per day. Furthermore, the editors of DailyKos went out of their way to scoop this reference from the AfD article's namesake- and those same editors went out of their way to discuss The Motley Moose. That doesn't even take into account the sites like TalkingPointsMemo that scooped the story without even bothering to cite The Motley Moose in detail. In fact, now that I search through the DailyKos site, editors from there still often use The Motley Moose as a source for news aggregation stories and to comment on current events, except that none have resulted in the amount of attention as the article cited. Since I don't see any way you can realistically argue that either, A) the DailyKos is a non-reliable, non-notable source, or B), the way the article was referenced was not-notable or reliable. You'll have to explain your thoughts further. Now, as for the other arguments, well, I understand why you are sticking with the judging criteria that you are. I cannot hold that against you. I would suggest, however, that the counterpoints I brought up on the arguments for further importance and notability are of no less importance in judging the article's worth than yours. Since I'm taking the time to respond to your points, I would appreciate you at least trying to address the other points I bring up, at least one or two in detail. It would help balance the argument and show, no matter the result here, that you are at least taking them into advisement, and I would certainly appreciate it. Also, considering the time you have poured into this discussion, I'd like you to join us at Wikiproject Blogging; we have 200-some articles on blogs currently unassessed and sitting neglected, and we can sure use your expertise there. In fact, I have two dozen noted aside here that need another editor going through to take a look at them; can I forward them to your talk page? Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely brief response: Thanks for the tag team. Peter: (I'll respond here rather than my talk page, as if I have to have this conversation over and over, I'd rather it be in one place) you are "one of the founding fathers" of Motley Moose; that is good enough to point at a conflict of interest. Ks64q2: I'm obviously not arguing that the DailyKos is non-reliable or non-notable nor that the reference is unreliable, rather that a single-line quote does not equate to discussing the site; it is a trivial mention.
 * Cheers,  one brave  monkey  08:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC
 * And I'll respond really quickly here- my apologies to other editors, I don't want to spam the AfD discussion, but as brave  noted, it's best to do this in one place; if you wanted to argue he has a COI now, that's not a problem, as he explained to both you and I previous to that; and secondly, only one of those DailyKos links has a one-line mention, the other has a multi-line mention, and while both were on the front page there, as I explained to you, at the time the second was posted they were getting tens of millions of hits a day, as it was in the midst of the 2008 Presidential election. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, sir, and I can respect it no matter what way this decision turns out, but please be factual about it. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Final brief response Onebravemonkey. It's a huge difference 'an article from the site's creator' to one of the 25 bloggers who agreed to start writing on the Moose after the acrimony of the Primary wars. This much smaller COI is there, hence the reason I have refrained from any intervention in the article itself.


 * But this COI is not retrospective. It doesn't invalidate the impartiality of a major feature I wrote for Britain's major philosophical monthly BEFORE I started blogging there. The editorial board felt no conflict of interest in my mention of joining Motley Moose at the end of the article. I reject the suggestion this was puffery, and have defended my journalism where it has been attacked.


 * I've learned from this important principles, and will now no longer even make factual corrections to articles I have any connection too because of the danger of COI. But I still stand by my right to intervene in this discussion when my writing and involvement has been misrepresented. While I'm happy to admit fault, I wish you and others from the previous AfD would admit your errors too, rather than just repeating damaging assertions. --Peterjukes (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User warned about WP:COI. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response And you, sir, were presented with the fact that your analysis in that regard was fatally flawed. If you want to contest that, by all means, feel free, but please acknowledge that mistake so that we don't have another flawed consensus in this AfD. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep without equivocation. I just spent more than a few minutes reading the author's comments, and the comments of both delete and keep opinions. I am convinced that notability had been met and the article deserves as much chance to grow as many other, far less worthy subjects that grace these electronic pages.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The only non-trivial treatment I've seen on the subject is this WP:SPS letter-to-the-editor style "My Story" opinion piece. It's possible there's others buried in the reference noise but there's an element of WP:OCE in your argument. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You err, sir; several other references were considered non-trivial, even in the first AfD. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat the closure of the first AfD: "No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown". This closure had been unanimously endorsed at the Deletion Review before you withdrew it. You may think that some of the references were not trivial, or that the first AfD was flawed (as you claim above), but it is quite clear that the first AfD and DRV were not agreeing with you. I believe it would be best if you concentrated on the new sources you added, instead of using this as a way to avoid a DRV which was clearly going against yoru wishes. Fram (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'll repeat to you, sir, it was explained to me in no uncertain terms the deletion review merely served as a reaffirmation of the AfD, and that no matter how flawed the AfD was, nor how many counterpoints I had to bring to the table, that was it's only purpose. You can review those logs if you'd like confirmation of that. It is somewhat disheartening that you, as well as others, are now using the fact I withdrew the DRV as a cudgel against this project, and strikes me as being completely disingenuous. In fact, none of the people that participated in the last AfD have even cared to correct their blatant misinterpretation of the events involved the article's creation, creator, and various effect of supposed conflict of interest. I understand you are an administrator and are only working for what you believe represents Wikipedia's best interests, but this strikes me as intellectual dishonest of the worst kind. If you have specific responses to the counterpoints I have made, I invite you to share them, sir; your status is unparalleled in this discussion so far, and I think it would bring great weight to them. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see, the DRV: "Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Support userfying the content if the nominator wishes to use this on another site. " So the closure followed consensus, and userfication is suggested to reuse the article on another site!. Second endorse: "I think that the correct decision was made in closing the AFD." Ignoring the uncivil IP, the next one states "I'm satisfied that the closing admin did what they were supposed to do: implement the consensus." Fourth one: "Simply put, the closing admin closed the discussion based on the consensus, in other words, the only way it could possibly have been done." I see noone stating that the AfD was flawed. Your withdrawal of the DRV did not change the fact that it would have been closed as "endorse deletion". Avoiding this by withdrawing the DRV and reposting the article in a nearly similar state is not very good: letting the speedy G4 be removed by an IP who has a clear COI (judging from his other edits) is not very impartial either. And I did not close the AfD based on arguments relating to the ceration, COI, or whatever else you care to add to the discussion; I based it solely on the arguments relating to the sources used in the article. As far as I can tell, all the arguments made to dismiss the sources given are still valid, in that they are either not independent, not reliable, or not about the blog but about some contributors to the blog. Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram, *I* stated the AfD was flawed; and your quotes prove my point in detail. And again, you are assuming bad faith on my part, which is less than helpful to our discussion here. It was explained to me that the only result of that DRV was to enact the community consensus, and that, again, no matter the arguments I brought forward, even if they fixed everything that was addressed and President Obama himself had mentioned the article's namesake, deletion was the only result possible. I am working within the frames of Wikipedian policy as I understood it. Now, as to your point on the sources, it still ignores the counterpoints I made in the essay above, and about the points you bring up in particular. Since I know that Wikipedia policies are largely vagarities of individual interpretation, and are not meant to be taken with a strict, lawyer-esque look at them for every single discussion like this, you can understand my frustration, hopefully. Thank you for your contribution to this dialogue. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy cow! I am new at this and boy is this discussion heated! Readign through the comments and looking at the website I would say though that the piece would be okay to keep. Seems like a lot of egos at work here hehe. But unlike the iranian bloggers or the classical music blog or deceiver, this site I think would be fine on our project. With that list of other things we are supposed to work on I think that this one is in much better shape!!! And a good part of the blog project. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoodaddy! (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Google reveals few results; I see no Google News hits. Google acts generally as a good way of seeing if notable third-party sources have covered Motley Moose, and I can't see any such links. WikiProject assessment ultimately isn't an alternative to the deletion process. I congratulate my fellow WikiProject Blogs member for trying to defend such blogs, but I think in this instance, the blog isn't sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article. Computerjoe 's talk 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the sources, I see several major publications have mentioned the blog but in my opinion these mentions aren't in-depth enough to be considered anything more than trivial. Computerjoe 's talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have done the same search but excluding 'The' (the website's name is actually "Motley Moose", and came up with 20,400 hits, about half of which (nested under different domain names) came from other sites. The author of this article should change the name to "Motley Moose" and exclude the definite article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.49.192 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good, we will look at eliminating the definite article and resorting simply to "Motley Moose" to address your concern, and register your vote as Keep ! Thank you, Joe! Ks64q2 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ks64q2, I've struck the vote above as it is not yours to change and there is no evidence to suggest that the IP above is Computerjoe. If he wanted to change his !vote, he would, so don't put words in his mouth.  one brave  monkey  08:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically not a vote and that IP isn't mine. Computerjoe 's talk 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after re-reviewing the article with the extra references. — I think it's hard to establish notability for blogs, but in this case I find the sheer weight of contributors who're notable in their own right (see the extensive list in the article) is indicative of notability.
 * I've reviewed the arguments for delete, and I can see:
 * Non-notable; unverifiable; lack of reliable sources; insufficient coverage to establish notability; conflict of interest; few google hits (with an acknowledgement that "several major publications have mentioned the blog but they aren't in-depth enough" in the editor's opinion).
 * I note that WP:N, WP:COI and WP:RS are guidelines, so none of these arguments are grounded in Wikipedia policy. A policy-based argument would therefore trump them.  WP:V is policy.  However, I find that it has been misapplied here.  What WP:V actually says is "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and I think this article is extensively sourced and some of the sources the article now quotes are "reliable".
 * The following policies support "keep".
 * 1) Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: rephrase; correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; request a citation by adding the fact tag—policy.
 * 2) It is wonderful when someone adds a comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged—policy.
 * 3) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it—policy.
 * Also, I think it's a sin against the basic purpose of creating an encyclopaedia to remove well-sourced material, such as that contained in this article.
 * Therefore I feel the stronger argument is in favour of keep.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Going through the references, all I see are blog posts and links to articles that don't even mention the site. There's one trivial mention in there. But WP:NOTE and WP:WEB require significant or non-trivial coverage for inclusion. Article clearly fails notability guidelines. --Sloane (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Sir, I appreciate your input but please review the entire AfD discussion and you'll see these points have been addressed. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just because you adressed these points doesn't mean they have been resolved. As others have said, notability is not inherited, just because a couple of notable persons participate in the website, doesn't make the website notable. Also, no one is contesting the notability of sites such as Daily Kos but they are just no reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentI looked at the previous AfD and was surprised to see that it was less than a month ago. This article should have been speedy deleted but apparantely an anonymous user with little edits deleted the tag. I'm going to put it up again and let an admin decide on speedy deletion. A possible revival of this article should have gone through deletion review.--Sloane (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting speedy deletion notice Sir, there are admins in this discussion right now, that's entirely unnecessary. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not seeing any substantive that meets WP:WEB. Past that, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the history of Motley Moose, as there isn't a whole lot of difference between that version that was deleted (see Articles for deletion/Motley Moose) and the current iteration of the article. I personally think this is a G4 case, but I'll leave that to the closing admin's discretion. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Ks64q2. All that needs to be said here, he has said. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because of a lack of reliable sources.--Caspian blue 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I find the weight of the arguments on the keep side to be convincing. --Skandha101 06:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandha101 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Should have been speedied as a G4 recreation of deleted material after an AfD and DRV which both clearly showed that deletion was correct. Now that it is here anyway, nothing has changed funcamentally: no significant coverage in reliable independent sources has been shown (despite claims to the contrary), since all the sources are either not very reliable (student newspapers, blogs), not independent (by people involved with the blog, whether they were already writing for it or were just asked to do so), or not significant (fleeting mentions). The "refutations" of these points are not convincing at all. Fram (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Small Correction Sorry, don't want to keep spamming this thread, but you're factually incorrect on the "not independent" item you quoted in your decision. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion, and I honor it no matter what it is, but please remember to assume good faith; the evidence above supports the posited timeline of events, not the one you espouse here. Thank you for your input. Ks64q2 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten a clue as to what you are correcting here. A source which states "They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is not an independent source any longer, and was not very reliable as it was a blog / opinion piece anyway. Fram (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Major Correction - Fram, please see Prospect Magazine; it is not a blog, and please also reference the discussion above, you seem to have missed the pertinent points. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a blog, it is a COI piece with regards to the notability of Motley Moose. So the latter part of my second comment was incorrect, the essential part remains. And I have read the discussion and have seen the pertinent points: just repeating on and on that everyone who disagrees with you has somehow missed all information that clearly establishes how notable this blog is gets a bit tedious though... Fram (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't know what all those long essays are about: Not in top 100,000 sites at Alexa? No reliable sources that cover this blog, which means no established notability and no verifiability? Therefore no encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an advertising service or a directory.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Given those bloggers involved, the subject matter and the current level of heightened political interest and the rising prominence of blogs in the news media world I have to add in WP:CSB in regards to finding sources. Which seems likely, again, do to the nature of the media, the players and content. What remains is neutral writing and legwork, aka clean-up. There seems to be a bias against blogs and bloggers in general and this might be a part of that. Blogs certainly can be reliable sources and more are catching on to becoming reputable sources and many morph into real world notability. This is an emerging field. Once the discussions closes I encourage those interested to dig through deleted content to see if some of the content and cites are salvageable and repurposeable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into the articles of the notable contributors to the blog. Perhaps the sources that are not available on line do provide significant third party coverage that would make the Moose a notable article in itself. However, based on the continued resistance of the supporters to acknowledge that " They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is both trivial AND not third party is sufficient evidence for me to question their analysis of the other sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable works of notable people are not notable unless the people are so notable that all of their works are automatically notable. The writers of this blog do not fit that category. Since there is no non-trival coverage of it in reliable third-party sources, this blog fails to meet any notability guidelines on its own. Bongo  matic  17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ks64q2 is currently going through and "notifying" members of the Article Rescue Squadron of this debate. I believe this to be WP:CANVASSING but since he challenged me on that I'm just posting it here as a notification. Here's some examples of his behaviour:, , and .  Them  From  Space  18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response I'll happily address that! Here's a pertinent quote: "But what I was wondering is if you'd take a look at the arguments I'm making and see if they are cogent and make sense- just so I can better get an idea of what I need to address. No more, no less- the better I know my strengths and weaknesses, the better I'm prepared in the future.""...and while the current consensus is (barely) keep, it seems like my points on rescuing the article keep getting ignored. If you had a free moment, could you take a look for me? Rather than have you actually contribute to the AfD, to avoid the appearance of meatpuppetry, I would appreciate a review of my own points/counterpoints, so I can improve my own article writing style and help rescue more articles in the future."
 * If Themfromspace  wants to bring more drama into this argument, I suppose that is his own forte, but it seems needlessly messiantic to me. Are we not supposed to be discussing the merits of this article, and not making unbiased personal attacks on others? Sir, as you can plainly see, I understand the dim view taken of canvassing. Please view the edit histories of each person, you'll see they're much more experienced than I and, have been through many an AfD before. Who better to ask for advice? This behavior strikes of a personal grudge; certainly, you could have kept this at my talk page; I could have easily shown this there- especially considering this is the first suggested step at Dispute_resolution. Thank you, and I apologize to all my fellow editors this had to play out here. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt If anyone here cares, i've mentioned the user above here . He persists in attacking other editors, i.e. "If Themfromspace  wants to bring more drama into this argument, I suppose that is his own forte." I asked him to desist multiple times. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as mere blogcruft with no credible claim to significance or notability. Eusebeus (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article is quite well sourced and cited. It just needs some more citations & sources. No need to delete the whole article.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the canvassed users by User:Ks64q2 . Seems like a case of bad faith as well: .--Sloane (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have looked at all the arguments presented. It is obviously a young blog but already has substantial known contributors and sources. Seems worthy of entry based on rate of growth to date but sources ought be continued to be added as able. The existing sources are reliable and independent, and the article is in line with Ignore all rules and IMPERFECT. I think the article is a fine edition to the encyclopedia here, and will help set an example other blog entries should follow. Attic Sleuth (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC) — Attic Sleuth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep I have reviewed in details all of the comments above. I have to agree with Attic Sleuth that this is a young blog but have several well known contributors and a growing blog reader base. In fairness for the Wiki-process, I must mention that I do visit this blog and post there along with blogs like MyDD, DailyKos and C40Democrats.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments There seems to be attempt here to frame folks who support this page as single purpose accounts created solely to support this webpage. This is plainly untrue in my case as I've been with Wikipedia since 2006, way before MotleyMoose came into being. Denoting such is unfair and I might pursue this further. --Louisprandtl (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt ok Louisprandtl. Here's your entire history You had 3 edits in 2006 involving an attempt to create a page, that didn't get done for one reason or another. Your first edit since 2006 was today -- to this AfD. All of your edits since have been to this AfD or your own userpage (about 6 total). That makes you definitionally an WP:SPA.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt Thanks Mr Bali for admitting that I'm here since 2006 coming especially from somebody who is here from October 2008. Please read the definition of SPA, and you'll know why are you wrong. "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia." You're wrong. If you still need the link to SPA page, I would be happy to provide with you with.--Louisprandtl (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The tagging seems (to me) incorrectly applied in your case. But the closing administrator should be able to identify that on review. However, your deletion of the following "delete" opinion (reinstated by another editor) seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome in an even less appropriate fashion.  Bongo  matic  03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt An unfair characterization would be deleted, hence it is not an attempt to influence the outcome. If I wanted to do so, I wouldn't have in my first remarks put in the disclaimer that I do visit this blog.--Louisprandtl (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to get into a pissing contest. But I have, uhm, over 3,000 edits here. And you have 19, 12 to this AfD and 7 to your own userspace.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss whom has the bigger edit count. For instance, I note a significant number of those edits were to this discussion, the Admin discussion you opened, etc. It's not about who has more edits. Please desist this behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you on about Ks64q2? Special purpose account made some point about how he had a log in since 2006 and therefore was not an SPA and then he "noted" when i started editing, as if that had some bearing on his situation. So I pointed out that less than 20 edits in 3 years, none of them to mainspace, the vast majority of them to this current AfD, actually points to him being a special purpose account rather conclusively (whereas, of course, 3000 edits on a wide range of articles, points towards NOT being an SPA). I won't desist from honestly, specifically and accurately responding to points addressed to me and won't "desist this (sic) behavior."Bali ultimate (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Does not change the fact that you've been here only for last 5 months and I've been here since 2006. Just because you've posted "3000" edits and I've not been an active editor does not entitle you to misuse the SPA characterization.--Louisprandtl (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisprandtl (talk • contribs) — Louisprandtl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment Going back and re-reading your comments and looking at the history, I think I understand what you were saying. I must make clear that I did not intend to delete the following comment. It was an unintended mistake. My earlier reply to you was related to the above SPA characterization.--Louisprandtl (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Louisprandtl has admitted to being a contributor to The Motley Moose, the blog in question.--Sloane (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please look at my Keep Comment above. I've clearly stated here that I do visit and post at MotleyMoose. This was done to preface my Strong Keep comment with the disclaimer of my interest as a regular user of the blog for proper evaluation of my comment. This was done in case there is an "appearance of conflict of interest". --Louisprandtl (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Louisprandtl -- your precise user name at The Motley Moose is #14 and appears to have signed up before the site went live. Are you in fact one of the 25 founders? It does appear that way .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was already answered explicitly here []. Given the nature of our previous interactions as above,[], your comments and actions in this AFD and elsewhere [] I'm refraining from further communication with you. Thanks. --Louisprandtl (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete. Blog-froth, not meeting WP:N. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did not read all the comments, but it is about the notability of the article I believe. So I checked out only the article itself. It appears to be a political blog, conservative republican. To avoid that one might thinks that my vote is only an allegiance vote, I'd like to add that I not identify myself with the content of that blog or would I consider myself to be a Republican (not even by a far stretch of imagination). I agree that the overall sourcing of the article is weak. However, I found one or two of them legitimate and actually pretty good. One source is actually "hostile" towards the blog. Getting noticed and mentioned by your "enemy" is probably one of the best things that could happen to you to proof your notability and relevance. So I suggest keeping the article and adding the necessary templates, including a "stub" template IMO, until it was cleaned up and meets Wikipedia standards.--roy&lt;sac&gt; <b style="color:red;">Talk!</b> .oOo. 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, this keep argument totally fails to inform us how this website is notable in light of WP:NOTE and WP:WEB guidelines. To repeat, we're looking for reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, not coverage in other blogs.--Sloane (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Just not enough independent sources to pass the WP:N test. Sorry. Maybe if you can add more sources I can change my opinion. Basket of Puppies 04:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For Full Disclosure- The version of the article most of the reviews here were based on prior to approximately 24 hours ago looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. It has been significantly edited since then. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's close to a db-web speedy: the only reliabls source (in either the current version or Ka64q2's preferred version) is the Prospect article, and the mention there fails the "non-trivial" test of WP:N. And it has WP:COATRACK problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete I don't see the extensive coverage of The Motley Moose, as a topic, in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Clearly fails the general notability standard. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete of the references provided, only three are independent from the topic of the article. ( and a student newspaper) A mention in a student newspaper does not confer notability. And the other two references mention the blog in passing. There are no third-party, secondary, reliable sources describing this topic. Fails WP:V -Atmoz (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No suggestion, even, of actual notability, and no real sources implying it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:WEB - should have been speedied. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't feel any new substantive arguments have been added since my earlier review; WP:WEB is essentially a special case of WP:N. Therefore, I still feel the strength of the argument (irrespective of votes that don't introduce new arguments) remains with keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: so you are adding a comment to state that your earlier opinion is unchanged? What's the point of that? This discussion is already 100K long, if everyone comes along to reaffirm their previous position we can double that without adding any value to the discussion. Fram (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Must kill moose (and sqvirrel). Hal peridol (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ks64q2 has been blocked under WP:3RR for 24 12 hours. and as such may not be able to contribute to this. He edited the article to be like  but many sources were removed due to people questioning their reliability. Computerjoe 's talk  17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm probably not the right person to point this but above Mr.Bali ultimate (talk) is commenting with the timestamp 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) in this article. Here at 15:13 18 March 2009 (UTC)timestamp [] he promised to the administrator to stay away from this article for the 12 hour period that K64 had been blocked. Am I missing something or concluding wrongly? Please let me know and I'll edit my comment out if I'm wrong .--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the article. This is the deletion discussion for the article. Bongo  matic  02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistaken assumption. I was wrong in my assumption that they were referring to this AFD. That makes sense..--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * New references analysis. Me, I think it's pretty unambiguous. 9Nak (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete In addition to comments others have made regarding the lack of coverage, the Alexa ranking for Motley Moose is 216,848. That is far to low for Wikipedia to consider it to be notable. Captain   panda  21:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown; that hasn't changed in a very long time. It just ain't notable, folks. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the basic criterion of WP:N, which requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Ray  Talk 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources that have commented in depth on what The Motley Moose actually does. Ref. 4 (Prospect Magazine) says that the blog is about to be launched. Ref. 7 (at Huffington Post) looks like a masthead entry for Michelle Gross that says she also blogs over at Motley Moose. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Tom 04:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the sources given are only trivial mentions of the site, in articles on other subects. Without multiple non-trivial reliable independant sources, notability is not established. Also, advertising for a blog is still advertising, even if not directly profit-generating.<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 08:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some well-known people got together and blogged. Not everything done by people of note are notable.  If this were considered notable, we would be seeing coverage for it rather than scraping up mentions here and there.  It may become more well=-established an notable in the future.  But it hasn't made it yet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 19 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.