Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose

References breakdown
Of the 19 currently cited references:
 * 10 don't contain the words "Motley" or "Moose" at all (#s 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18)
 * 3 refer back to the site itself (#s 1, 9, 19)
 * 3 are incidental (#s 5, 7, 16)
 * 1 is a vanity reference to an incidental references (#6, which points to #5)

The remaining two references (#10 and #11) may be valid, but are offline-only.

For comparison, see the breakdown of references in the original entry at the original Afd here. 9Nak (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Accusation "Several sources referenced failed particular guidelines"


 * Specific complaints with references by the nominator are 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".
 * 5. "Notable sources are offline sources"
 * I am perplexed as to why this is a problem. There is nothing in the Wikipedian standards discussing this. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Three quick points. One: kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. Two: the argument that references which never mention the subject should be included in an evaluation of notability is as over the top as any Wikilawyering I've ever seen. Three: the simple solution to this is to include sufficient reliable, independent sources to show notability. A large volume of words does not have the magical property of turning bad sources into good ones. 9Nak (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should both take a step back from this process, my friend; we seem to have similar complaints with each other. You've missed the rationalization I included on those "never mention the subject", even after having presented it once again, and are now accusing me of "wikilawyering" the issue, then further going on to apparently accuse me of grandstanding. Let me try to simplify this issue, then- say President Barack Obama were to contribute to a blog; are we suggesting that the blog would remain un-notable until someone else cataloged that? Or, that the blog were to conduct an interview with for Roy Bennett, and the interviewer and contributor was Joe Trippi? Your suggestions are certainly well in line with Wikipedia policy by the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit. Nor is it directly addressing the issue I brought up in return, merely the manner I am bringing up the argument. I would say, sir, this fits any definition of Wikilawyering you care to espouse. If we cannot both come to an agreement here, I'll forward this to an administrator and ask he recuse us both from this discussion. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem
Please ensure the discussion remains civil and refrains from being ad hominem. An ad hominem argument reflects badly on both arguments. Argue the merits of article, not the intentions of parties. Computerjoe 's talk 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New references breakdown
With the entry creator blocked for 12 hours the current version of the entry may actually be relatively stable for 10 minutes. After work from several editors it is now a different beast, with bad and irrelevant references removed. I think this is a great time to do a references breakdown again. Of the seven current references: Number 5 is the odd one out. It can not be directly judged by all of us, as it is offline only, but some argue that it is a student newspaper and therefore not strictly reliable. Regardless, from where I'm standing that is exactly one possible non-trivial references – which means the entry fails the "multiple" requirement in WP:NOTE. 9Nak (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * #1 is the site itself
 * #2 is trivial and has been argued to be not-independent (one paragraph in a 3 700 word piece; an opinion piece, the writer of which is a contributor to the Moose)
 * #3 is trivial (as in it is not about the Moose, but simply links there, to pre-empt that old chestnut of an argument)
 * #4 is the site itself, again
 * #6 is trivial (as in not about the Moose, but simply a mention on the bio of a blogger)
 * #7 is the site itself, again.


 * Response — I think that doesn't address the nature of the keep argument as I see it.
 * As you requested on my talk page, here's a cut-and-paste of my summary of the arguments from the main page:


 * 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)


 * Now, I think the sources presently cited establish very clear compliance with WP:V. I believe it's uncontroversial to say that:
 * # The Motley Moose exists; and
 * # It has many contributors of varying notability.
 * The key point there is that WP:V is policy. WP:N is not.  Like any guideline, it's susceptible to the weight of argument.
 * I think there's a significant problem that references to meet WP:V are being attacked because, in various posters' opinion, they don't meet WP:N. It's my position that that doesn't matter.  My position is that policy trumps guidelines, and that all this alphabet soup about WP:N and WP:WEB is essentially a whole school of red herrings that completely fail to address the real force of the keep argument.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont


 * Which would mean that every website can have an article here, since they can obviously be verified. But anyway, since you need a policy reason to delete these, why don't you try our deletion policy? It states, under "reason for deletion": "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" So everyone arguing for deletion is doing so for policy based reasons... Fram (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think that policy says that every verifiable website can potentially have an article here, provided the article is well-sourced, NPOV and doesn't contravene WP:BLP. I think that once WP:BURDEN is satisfied, there's a presumption to keep unless there's a consensus for deletion, and I think that consensus has yet to be achieved.  I think that the deletion argument relies on an overly restrictive view of WP:N in this case, as well.  I think blogs can be notable and indeed very influential.
 * I agree that WP:DP applies, particularly the part that says "Improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". I think that if half the effort had been spent on improvement that's been spent on deletion, we'd have an excellent article by now.
 * I deplore that this discussion has been disrupted by inappropriate behaviour on both sides.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I would have had problems with one or two sections, but not with having an article on the subject as such, I would not have supported deletion, and I think many of the other people supporting deletion have the same general attitude. But since I believe, after reviewing the available sources, that the subject is the problem, and that the article can not be in such a way improved that the notability problems are solved, I have no choice but to support deletion of this page. And I think that you are too optimistic if you think that the AfD currently does not show a consensus for deletion, but that is up to the closing admin of course. Fram (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I just did a raw !vote-count showing 27 "deletes", 1 "merge" and 12 "keeps" (after discounting those keeps tagged as spa's at the time of counting). So if we count !votes—and some closers give those more weight than others—then we have 67.5% for "delete", 2.5% for "merge" and 30% for "keep", which is hardly a consensus. But I confidently expect the closer will discount some "keep" !votes as canvassed, and also some "delete" !votes as WP:JUSTA and WP:JNN that add nothing of weight. Whichever way it gets closed, someone won't be happy with the decision so I'll keep an eye out for this at DRV.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments suck:
 * 1. Argument one: "sheer weight of contributors who're notable in their own right is indicative of notability." I see two contributors without their own article, notable my ass. Further ,notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter anyway.
 * 2. Argument two: "WP:N and WP:RS don't matter." Yes, they do.
 * 3. Argument three: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Terrible cop-put that would lead us to keep even vandalism, if adapted in the way you think it should be. We should only preserve notable information, which is what the whole discussion is about.
 * 4. Argument four: "Ignore all rules." Another cop-out. This simply means that rules should be flexible and people shouldn't do retarded stuff just to adhere to rules. It doesn't actually mean ignore all rules. Or else, we wouldn't have any rules. --Sloane (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you're attacking his arguments, and not him, but please tone down the rhetoric here. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sloane, please go and be rude to someone else.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, ignoring the various inappropriate parts of that reply:
 * First point: Not everyone who's notable has a wikipedia article. In other words, having a wikipedia article is indicative of notability, but not having one is not indicative of non-notability, so I disagree.
 * Second point: My position is WP:N and WP:RS do matter, but they carry less weight than policy.
 * Third point: Actually my position is that we should preserve well-sourced information.  As I said rather clearly, I think deleting well-sourced information from Wikipedia undermines the whole aim of building an encyclopaedia.
 * Fourth point: What you call my "cop-out" is a fundamental policy confirmed as such by Jimbo Wales.  My position is that The Motley Moose is influential enough to merit a Wikipedia article and so in accordance with IAR, I intend to disregard any technicality that implies otherwise.
 * I hope that's clear to both of you now, but I'll happily answer questions about it if there's any aspect of my position you still don't get.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tally
(responding to S Marshall) Actually, as to the !votes, 13 are "keep," 29 are for "delete" (if we count the nominator) and one is for "merge." Hopefully, the closing admin will evaluate the arguments on the merits of the relevant policies, rather than tallying up a straight "vote." Of the "keeps" four are clear SPAs, and two of these are founding members of the site in question. Ks6 (not an SPA) also appears to have very strong links to the site, and may be one of its founding members as well, yielding: Again, these numbers shouldn't have too much sway. But since you brought it up here, I though i'd lay out the current state of play.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 30% in favor of keep including the SPAs.
 * 21% in favor of keep if the four SPAs are excluded.
 * 18% in favor of keep if we further exlcude Ks6.
 * You're correct to say that, assuming all the "delete" !votes are given full weight and several of the "keep" !votes are disregarded, there's less than 20% in favour of "keep". I won't reply by tagging individual delete !votes that should be disregarded, because that's the closer's judgment to make.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just correcting your math and this inaccurate statement made by you up above "I just did a raw !vote-count showing 27 "deletes", 1 "merge" and 12 "keeps" (after discounting those keeps tagged as spa's at the time of counting)." In fact that included the SPAs and somehow undercounted the deletes. If there are any other SPA's on that page, whatever position they hold, they should be so tagged. Go for it (i'm not aware of any more though).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alleged SPAs, please, Bali. SPA-tagging gets overenthusiastic sometimes.  (I'm sensitive to that because I've been tagged as a SPA myself on at least two occasions.)
 * I won't flag anyone else as a SPA. I'll just note that there was a sudden spate of seven successive "delete" !votes late on in the process, including some users who I don't often see at AfD, and note that I find this suspicious, particularly in a matter that's gone to WQA and AN/I because of a high level of personal investment from some users in this heavily disrupted debate.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain your suspicions please. (The reason there's been more traffic is precisely because the AfD ended up mentioned on 3 or 4 separate noticeboards. That always increases the profile of an article, an AfD -- any issue really.) Please, spell our your suspicions so we can examine them on their merits in the light of day or keep them to yourself.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a pattern, Bali, with a debate running between 50-50 and 60-40 between 15th and 18th March, followed by an unbroken run of fourteen successive "delete" !votes on 18th and 19th March, seven of which were within a very short period of time.
 * Now, I recognise that the deletion side raised it to WQA on 17th March and then, discovering that WQA did not lead to the swift censure of Ks64q2 that they hoped, raised it further to AN/I on 18th March (where, again, both sides were censured).
 * I see two possibilities. First, as you allege, maybe raising it to AN/I was what attracted a sudden string of "delete" !votes; but against that is the fact that there were no new arguments introduced on 18th March, so I'm surprised that a debate previously running 50-50 would suddenly be skewed in that way.  I think the closer will need to consider the possibility that there's been off-wiki canvassing.
 * Either way, these !votes clearly arose as a result of disruptive behaviour during the debate, plus two successive escalations, rather than as a result of the normal AfD process. I feel that should have some impact on the weight given to them.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good lord. Those arguing for delete outnumber those arguing for keep because this website is the subject of no non-trivial, indepdent coverage that would allow for the establishment of its notability or otherwise verify claims made about it. That's what leads people to argue for delete, and the merit of that claim is what needs to be examined. Canvassing my foot.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of the notability discussion haven't we covered, exactly?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The part where you make up allegations of canvassing from whole cloth and in bad faith disregard the chance that many users might honestly disagree with you and vote delete for good-faithed reasons (i.e. fails WP:NOTE.Bali ultimate (talk)
 * I realise you don't find the pattern strange or suspicious, Bali, but it's not unreasonable for me to say that I do. WP:AGF doesn't mean I'm not allowed to raise concerns in an appropriate way, as I feel I've done.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A tally really doesn't matter. Consensus etc. Don't tally, it's silly. Computerjoe 's talk 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

About closure for deletion
One point the closing editor did not make is that the article recently went though a previous AfD discussion with the same outcome, and that a deletion review&mdash;withdrawn midway through&mdash;was leaning towards ratification of that outcome. While this is in no way dispositive, it certainly adds weight to the arguments in favor of deletion, as the fundamental points at issue were identical the second time through. Bongo matic  01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the last version of the original article it seems that it mischaracterized the blog and did not reflect it accurately. I was about to flip my earlier Strong Keep to Delete because of that. Hence I'm glad that the Admin chose to delete this article. The notability argument aside, this is a good case where even well intentioned editors can destroy an article. Sometimes a journal type peer review []is a better process.--Louisprandtl (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like some wine with that cheese? Yes, if only ill-intentioned and incompetent editors hadn't "destroyed" it and left it at the The Wrong Version the world would be a better place. I absolutely hate The Wrong Version too.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bali, please refer to WP:BITE and WP:SARCASM. There are more appropriate ways to behave towards users with low edit counts.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A silly effort on flamebait []. Obviously you're not well versed in netiquette (Your public history thus far consists of 5 months using an anonymous handle in wiki). Thus far you had been extremely hostile, rude, uncivil and impolite. I politely suggest you read up here before you try to flame anybody. Hope this helps to know why you're being ignored in future.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He was an SPA (one edit total -- signing up to ARS -- out of his 70 odd not associated with this AfD) with a conflict of interest and he behaved appallingly. This "everybody's out of step but Johnny" stuff is tedious and inaccurate (general notability guidelines are the encyclopedia's friends). If he is truly interested in contributing around here (zero evidence of that so far) then he should stop whining about consensus being enforced ("If i can't have the article just the way i want it then i don't want wikipedia to have the article at all"), read up on how and why things get done here, and get to editing. Not biteing the newcomers does not means tolerating abuse from editors with a clear conflict of interest.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, even though I disagree with it. We were all new at one point and we need people who're willing to participate in Wikipedia.  But my point is that there are ways to say things that don't lead to conflict or drama.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I haven't said any of those things. Either you don't understand what I wrote, or intentionally engaging in distortion.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I believe in this. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to re-read it. :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, calling somebody a spade is considered a racial slur and that adage has racist connotation and is considered improper. I suggest you read up on this . --Louisprandtl (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to dig more and flame away with the windmill []. Consider yourself ignored. --Louisprandtl (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)