Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com


This page is promoting a purge of information from articles using the source Independent Political Report. Discussion here does not show agreement that IPR is not a reliable source for information on third party candidates. William S. Saturn (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Illegitimate MfD This is a disruptive (diff) attempt to WP:IDHT. "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as historical or redirecting it somewhere." appears to apply. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not disruptive because this is not a policy page. I'd like to see the community's opinion on the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy based reason to delete this, and no problems with its use have been shown. If there is a problem, links to a couple of articles where the problem is apparent is required. As normal for WP:RSN, there are differing views, but the statement at the page up for deletion that "independentpoliticalreport.com is an unedited link aggregator that has been repeatedly rejected by RS/N" is self-evidently true, at least as far as "unedited link aggregator" is concerned (I haven't checked RS/N archives to see if the latter statement is correct, but it is clearly inappropriate to link to a site like that as a source—link only to a reliable source in a reference). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it self-evident if that label is disputed? I suggest IAR is appropriate here, since continued purges have the potential of disrupting wikipedia as was done here, which obscured the page to present false information.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is no reason to delete this page that is policy based. Again with the "purging"... There is no purge going on. In fact, the page in question right now has 10 articles tagged, out of 183, hardly a purge. Did you bother to even look at the removals? For example, the Chuck Baldwin article, the cite from the IPR article says "According to Third Party Watch, Simms alleges: , blah blah blah", do you really think IPR is an RS source for a quote from another news agency we've never heard of that's "alleging" something *someone else* said? Really?? If you looked at one of the other pages where we stumbled upon some terrible looking sourcing, you would see that so far, the vast majority have either been kept, repaired, or a better cite found, and with reasons given for every deletion. You really need to step back and look at what's going on here before getting all excited about it. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 05:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the discussion you link to shows *you* don't agree with the conclusions about IPR, there's very little difference between the opinions of editors who have spent any time at RSN (the one editor that agreed with you has never posted anything else to RSN ever as far as I can tell). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 05:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than the sloppiness at which they were carried out, I have no issue with the purges on the Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr pages. However, the purge on United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 looks completely arbitrary as the sources there are being used in the manner discussed on the noticeboard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you're upset about this "purge" (still no purge!) because you don't like how it was done on *1* article Out of 111? --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 05:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a bad feeling about what may happen to others as well if this is not taken on a case-by-case basis.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad feelings aside, I guess you didn't hear me the first *4* times I mentioned this would be taken on a case-by-case basis, back in our original discussion... --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 06:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what you said, but what I see is a different matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The RSN large scale clean-ups page fails to establish per consensus policy that there is a consensus of multiple editors to delete all independentpoliticalreport.com links or even to delete independentpoliticalreport.com from the Wikipedia articles listed on the large scale clean-ups page. Where's the diff to that consensus discussion? A broken RS/N report link isn't sufficient, which is what is on the page now. The listed "Summary of problem" is poor at best. Combining multiple network connections in parallel through a link aggregation to increase throughput beyond what a single connection could sustain has nothing to do with reliable sources. If there is no Link aggregator page or subpage linked on that Large scale clean-ups page, how are editors supposed to understand what is and is not allowed or even why the page is listed? If unedited link aggregators are not allowed, are edited link aggregators allowed? How is independentpoliticalreport.com a link aggregator when that site clearly has much more than links? When I went to independentpoliticalreport.com, I was expecting to see something like drudgereport.com, which aggregates URL to articles on other sites. independentpoliticalreport.com has actual articles posted within it. There are no diffs on the above MFD listed page to support the assertion that independentpoliticalreport.com has been repeatedly rejected by RS/N. Independent Political Report 20 September 2010, which is not a reached consensus, supports the assertion that independentpoliticalreport.com has been rejected by RS/N. Interview in Independentpoliticalreport.com for BLP? 19 April 2010 does not support the assertion that independentpoliticalreport.com has been rejected by RS/N. The "Independent Political Report" 20 June 2012 should to be closed by an admin with remarks about any consensus reached. Where's the multiple RS/N discussions to support the page assertion of being "repeatedly rejected by RS/N" as noted on the Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com page. Clearly, adding independentpoliticalreport.com to the URL parameter in a Wikipedia citation where no better URLs are available to reliable source material would seem valuable to Wikipedia, especially where reliable source articles on America’s third parties and independent candidates are unlikely to be posted to the Internet in a location other than independentpoliticalreport.com. Obviously, citing Independent Political Report in the work or publisher parameters in a citation when Independent Political Report is not the source is wrong. On a broader note, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups fails to include many of the elements listed at WikiProject Council/Guide, so there is not sufficient basis to determine at MfD why independentpoliticalreport.com qualifies for Large scale clean-ups. (You may want to create WikiProject Large scale clean-ups to remedy this). Since this page fails established processes and relies on processes or process details that do not exist for its existence, delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to have no awareness of the manner in which RS/N functions. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Take no action - Clearly a content dispute and wholly inappropriate to use Deletion discussion to influence policy. Would be a Speedy Keep per Criterion 2 without Uzma Gamal's comments. Achowat (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What policy is being influenced?--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies "policy" isn't the correct term. But you are trying to change the way we do things through MFD, which is not even close to its purpose. There are many venues (AN, VP, RFC, Talk pages) for discussing "What our procedures should be". MFD should be the place to ask "what are our policies, and how do we apply them?". I would support an IAR early close. Achowat (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) My comments are stricken and should have no bearing on the discussion; I have realized that this discussion affects pages about "Politics in the United States" and therefore, per my voluntary COI disclosure and commitments, I recuse myself from consideration of this issue. Achowat (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and remind Uzma and William that they can help out with the clean-up. Clean-up does not mean removing the link in all cases, rather it means systematically checking when the link is used appropriately and when not. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ideal clean-up is one in which we discover all or the majority of uses are fully legitimate, and award editors in the area culturally suitable drinks and snacks, and then boast about them publicly for the next 18 months whenever we need an example of spontaneously formed excellence in sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not happening, rather Fifelfoo is blanking material and/or removing the source and adding a "fact" tag.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep If anyone has a content dispute on usage in a specific article - that article's talk page is the proper venue.  I trust that material of legitimate value to readers is being weighed properly, but deletion of this page ain't the proper way to proceed. Collect (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not being properly weighed. Everything is being deleted by Fifelfoo.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then address individual content issues on the proper talk pages - deletion of this page is not what you appear to seek. Collect (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is perpetuating the blankings. The only sources appropriate for "large-scale cleanup" are those that consensus deems as being misused on a wide-scale basis. That is not the case with this source, which is why this page should be deleted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a legitimate workpage critical to cleaning up Wikipedia. Fifelfoo should be lauded for this work, not restricted or prevented. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't be lauded. When he removes stuff (even when its legitimate), he manages to do it sloppily. This is not improving wikipedia. It is removing appropriate uses of a source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.