Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Bloggers

Old VfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

Not notable Skrewler 01:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa ranking is 760,324. --Joel7687 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There was an acrimonious debate over this entry just a few months ago, I see no good reason to revisit the subject. - SimonP 02:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vote pending further review (see below) Despite claims that they're important in the political scene (on the talk page) in Canada, I find no actual media coverage to that effect. If they're as important as the New York Times (again a claim from the talk page) you'd think there'd be at least ONE reference to them on Google News... but alas, nothing. Doesn't really seem to be many comments at all to blog entries, suggesting not a large community. Low Alexa rank. Nothing to suggest there's a reason to have an article. --W.marsh 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone can verify the claim of their importance, then I'd quite possibly change my vote. But claims alone != proof. --W.marsh 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oh god, not this again. What a pain in the ass this debate was last time. All sorts of newbies and anons and arguments and name calling. Someone even claimed that deleting the article would harm polticial debate in Canada. Anyway, nominal delete, because that's how I voted last time, and I don't think anyone ever convinced me otherwise. -R. fiend 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please keep in mind non-American systemic bias identified in Wikipedia. Using Alexa ranks to support deletion of non-American entries is a biased situation, because of the low national populations of other countries compared to the US (Canada has 1/10th the population).--Simon.Pole 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then divide the rank by 10 (or even 50) and it doesn't meet the proposed guidelines of WP:WEB. By your logic any non-US site, no matter how trivial, should be included. --W.marsh 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Should Alexa rankings even be applied to websites outside the United States? It seems that the criteria for Alexa "notability" is based on the U.S. experience. This in itself should exclude its application to non-US sites.--Simon.Pole 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This is largely a discussion for elsewhere... but I don't think Alexa is just U.S. thing. Maybe an english-speaking thing, but I think it's a pretty valid barometer of the popularity of english-language sites. At any rate the site being in Canada doesn't account for it having a rank 50 times lower than the WP:WEB guideline. But traffic is just one part of the decision here... I was just a bit bothered that it's unreliability was the only reason you cited for keeping. The lack of any real verification of this blog's importance is much more at issue, I think. --W.marsh 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Alexa is a self-selected sample, suffering from selection bias and the results are highly suspicious to someone with my statistical training. I can think of all kinds of reason why Canadian leftie blogger audiences would be more likely to chose not to install spyware on their computer. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The bottom line is that it's a valid ballpark estimate of traffic... not accurate enough for most statistical purposes, but enough to estimate popularity. Even Slashdot, the poster site for the anti-IE/Anti-spyware mentality, gets a high rank and has double digits of IE/Windows-using readers. But this is an argument beyond the scope of this AfD I think. --W.marsh 06:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. -- As notable as my mother. (she's not unless you have a list of porn stars with huge tits) 65.34.232.136 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh but we do!. -R. fiend 05:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Still, those actresses are more notable than Progressive Bloggers. Skrewler 05:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do we really need to list every blogging group on wikipedia? And if you start saying that there's a lot of American blogger groups entries in wikipedia, please point them out so I can VFD them as well. --Timecop 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable blogging group in Canada. Simon.Pole made it quite evident in the last AfD discussion that this site is politically notable in Canada with a fairly large number of media citations, notable memebers, etc. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link to any of those media citations? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to be informed. I can't find the references, I've looked. --W.marsh 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Alot of the references were in the last vfd, and are actually collected in the Progressive Bloggers entry. I'll list some of them here though:
      • Role of Canadian blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers on the Gurmant Grewal national political controversy discussed on [CTV]
      • Progressive Blogger member Dominion Daily weblog entered in the Parliamentary record during a constitutional debate by Seantor Anne Cools.
      • Columnist Antonia Zerbisias at Canada's highest circulation paper the Toronto Star regularly cites Progressive Bloggers as a source of news and ideas eg. 1, 2
      • Progressive Bloggers includes notable Canadians as members. These include pop star Matthew Good, Young Liberal Executive Co-Chair Jason Cherniak, and candiates for Parliament from the national parties including NDP member Crystal Leblanc.
      • The Progressive Bloggers "opposite number" the Blogging Tories, has almost the same qualities, including national public figures members like Adam Dafallah, national party candidates like Stephen Taylor and a good number of sitting MPs like Monte Solberg,Jeremy Harrison,Steven Fletcher, Jeff Watson and Andrew Scheer. Blogging groups, both left and right-wing, have national political signicance in Canada, something, judging by the reactions of non-Canadians, does not exist elsewhere --Simon.Pole 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for that information, I've retracted my vote for now and will review those further when I get time tomorrow. --W.marsh 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this site is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.129.117 (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep for the above reasons. --Merovingian 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Anybody who seriously wants to base a deletion argument on Alexa ranking alone needs to ponder these numbers very carefully. Every one of these is a legitimately notable and important Canadian media outlet or blogger whose actual importance within Canada is completely unreflected by its Alexa rank:

Rabble - Alexa ranking 112,658

The Tyee - Alexa ranking 114,045

Colby Cosh's blog - Alexa ranking 263,925

Andrew Coyne's blog - Alexa ranking 360,265

This Magazine - Alexa ranking 818,198

• And hey, let's save the funniest for last, shall we? Rick Mercer's blog gets an Alexa ranking of 3,439,915. RICK MERCER, one of the most influential Canadian media personalities in existence, only ranks in the 3,000,000 range? Excuse me?
  Any metric which ranks all websites on a single scale is inherently going to favour American website traffic to the expense of other countries, and can quite easily misrepresent the actual importance of a non-American site to its own national context. Alexa is simply not a reliable gauge of a Canadian website's importance within Canada -- it's a reliable gauge of how many Americans visit a Canadian website. If a site as undeniably important as Rabble can't even meet the stated guidelines, then there's something seriously wrong with the guidelines. Every Canadian voter in this debate has clearly stated that Progressive Bloggers are notable enough. If our actual experience doesn't overrule the obviously flawed metric of a website whose statistical method isn't even regarded as valid by professional statisticians, then why don't we just let Alexa ranking stand as a speedy criterion and save everybody the trouble of thinking their opinion actually mattered or something? Notable enough within Canada to keep. Bearcat 07:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because something is supposedly notable in Canada and not in the rest of the world doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. Should a country of similar importance, say.. Christmas Csland had a blog group be notable because everyone on christmas island reads it.. of course not. Also, because blogs are webcentric, Alexa is a good metric for their notability. Of course using Alexa as a metric for Time Magazine doesn't make any sense. Skrewler 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - This is ludicrous. User: Skrewler, who put this article in Vfd in the first place, has just admitted that the criteria for notability is the United State of America. What a joke. Are non-American to be treated as second class citizens on Wikipedia?--Simon.Pole 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Christmas Island is hardly a country "of similar importance" to Canada. And Alexa is only a good metric of how many Americans read a website. Citing Alexa without context is essentially endorsing an "American stuff is automatically more notable than any other country's stuff just because it's American" policy. Bearcat 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable/trash Adamn 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the first two sources cited by W.Marsh. Include them in the article if they're not there yet. (If Alexa doesn't show the notability of a website, one should not complain about US bias, but find alternative means to back up its inclusion) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blogcruft and canuckcruft. Dottore So 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Whatever else we have is always an argument by analogy. Looking at this article, we get unverifiable claims and, essentially, an ad for a particular blog. Blug. If there is a systemic bias, it's the bias created by slashdotted votes whenever a forum/blog/website comes up for deletion. Geogre 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm sick of these far-right yahoos trying to crush the opposition with dirty-pool tactics like this.Dawg9:10, 15 November 2005 [DST]
  • This is not a war. I could care less if you're left or right, frankly I don't even know the difference. This is a not notable article promoting a blog. That's why it's on VFD.
    • Right. Which is why you've moved to delete Blogging Tories too. I must have missed that.
• Delete, not notable. Fer real. I don't care what country you're in, if nobody reads your website even adjusted for population, your website's not notable. Although, I dunno, maybe I'm just ruthlessly promoting systemic bias against the country I'm from. Lord Bob 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And how exactly do you propose to judge that "nobody reads the website even adjusted for population"? Bearcat 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no certain measurements at hand, of course, but the evidence listed above by others is circumstantial but, in the situation, persuasive. I choose not to assume that, lacking evidence, this blogger group is notable because they say so. Lord Bob 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Lacking evidence? The evidence already presented in the article is fairly substantial; if you can't see it, Simon.Pole summarized some of it above. Do you seriously find anybody else's argument-by-Alexa-rank persuasive in light of the fact that a blog as widely read and talked about as Rick Mercer's doesn't even manage to rank in the top 3,000,000 according to Alexa? Or were you just asleep during the whole Gurmant Grewal thing? Bearcat 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've read the article, and the "evidence" does not impress me. And as for Mr. Mercer's blog doing so poorly...guess what? As a blogger, Rick Mercer is not notable. As an actor, he is. Just because a famous person's blog isn't notable doesn't mean that all traffic rankings are crap. Lord Bob 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • "Not impressing you" is not generally my bottom-line metric of notability. Its role in the Grewal affair spells notability whether that personally interests you or not. Citations by Antonia Zerbisias spell notability whether that personally interests you or not. And I'm most certainly not conflating Mercer's significance as an actor with his significance as a blogger; his blog, specifically, is one of the most-talked-about Canadian blogs on the web. Unless you're proposing that it's somehow possible for people to talk about Rick Mercer's blog as much as they do without anybody ever actually reading it, the dichotomy just doesn't do Alexa any favours. Bearcat 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, if my reasons for deletion don't impress you, then that's too bad, one fewer 'delete' vote on this AfD. But I stand by them, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Clearly, neither one of us is going to convince the other. Lord Bob 18:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd be more impressed if you were actually attempting to address and/or refute the stated facts — how does PB's role in the Grewal affair not equal notability? how do regular citations by Antonia Zerbisias not equal notability? how does citation in the Parliamentary debate record by Anne Cools not equal notability? etc. — instead of relying on the "because I said so" school of assertion. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Bearcat 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • (So much for me agreeing to disagree!) Anyway, regarding citations: in my opinion notable people citing you does not automatically confer notability onto you. Said citations are not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Progressive Bloggers, incidentally. And their role in the Grewal thing seems, to me, almost trivial. As in, the only mention of Grewal in their article is in the 'trivia' section. Actually investigating what role they seem to have played bears this out...ooh, look out, one of them made what amounted to a diff. Notability is a subjective issue, we all know that. And I do not think these guys meet it. Lord Bob 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Both Blogging Torries and Progressive Bloggers enable Canadian web users to access blogging communities of like minded individual. These communities enable anyone to engage in a common forum across Canada where ideas and politics can be shared and critiqued. Without these blogs, Canadians from the grassroots to the top would not have a central online source to measure what other like minded individuals think on topics important to them. This in my opinion makes them notable. --Jtorgers 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's second edit, has only editted this AfD. Lord Bob 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have a feeling this might not be the only new user we're tagging today, since they're calling out the vote on us. Lord Bob 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah this really is getting needlessly nasty. While I think the site is probably notable at this point, the attitudes and actions of the people supporting it (who all appear to be connected to the site) really don't make me want to vote to keep. Trolling for votes, acting like it's some big conspiracy against Canada, labeling critics as "The Vile Syndicate" in various places... that's not going to endear many people to your blog. I guess some don't care though. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Case in point right there... geeeeeeeeeeze. I'm trying to agree with you and still just get abuse. --W.marsh 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The nastiness is being perpetrated by this "Lord Bob" guy, a self-admitted supporter of the Canadian Conservative Party, who has crawled out of the woodwork in the midst of election fever in Canada, and is doing his party-hack thing right here. Nothing from "Lord Bob" about the notability of the Blogging Tories entry. This kind of thing is another reason to fear the election of Stephen Harper: rabid intolerance, intellectual dishonesty and a love of censorship. Don't take my word for it: read "Lord Bob."John Baglow 15:11, 15 November 2005 (DST)
      • ...riiiiiiiight. Lord Bob 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • John and Simon, would you both please tone down the rhetoric and keep this discussion on topic? This isn't about bombing or war, and it's not a nefarious Tory plot to sideline progressive discussion. It's just a debate about whether or not the article is notable enough on its own merits; the argument is easily made without resorting to ad hominem attacks. And while it is true that a single contextless Alexa-rank cutoff can distort the notability of a non-American site, it's not a conscious and intentional plot to institute American bias; it's just an accidental side effect of a policy that wasn't designed carefully enough. So would you guys cut out the conspiracy theories and stay on topic, please? Bearcat 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Well said! Lord Bob 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for saying that, seriously. --W.marsh 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I needed that. What is Blogging Tories' Alexa rating, btw? John Baglow 17:44, 15 November 2005 (DST)
            • Sorry. W.marsh called me out. He was actually citing my user page in this vfd, which I took as a personal attack. So I replied in spirit. I'll keep it professional in the future.--Simon.Pole 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry you took my quoting you that way... that wasn't my intent. I was just responding to how I perceived this discussion/situation. --W.marsh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Non-notable except to the people who write in it. And the puppets? Eeeww. Ifnord 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If this goes, Daily Kos -- which is directly comparable to this in both purpose and level of influence within its specific political context -- will have to be considered deletable per precedent. Bearcat 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, bearcat, maybe you should VfD Daily Kos yourself, you have my vote! Skrewler 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're the one who thinks these things aren't notable, not me. Sarcasm duly noted, though; can you actually explain to me why Daily Kos is notable enough for an article but a site serving the exact same function in another country isn't? Bearcat 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Femmina
• Keep - Notable group of Canadian bloggers. Bloggers are becoming increasingly influential and Wikipedia should maintain a comprehensive coverage of significant bloggers and groups. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. 86.139.205.160 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  User:86.139.205.160's first edit. Two other edits on another political blog AFD. Luigizanasi 03:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is clearly NOT notable. --Impi.za 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's eleventh edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it real

  vote by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs). Lord Bob 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. (CC of my Blogging Tories vote cos I don't want to sound biased) - Randwicked 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't believe much of the opinion that goes on there, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it.Semperf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The deletion of this entry appears to be part of an organized effort among several users to erase all blog-related entries from Wikipedia. The organizing list is here. I've noted elsewhere that they even put J.D. Lasica's entry up for deletion. If that alone doesn't show a profound ignorance about what is actually happening in the world, well, they must be in high demand for jury duty.--Simon.Pole 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. --Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.--Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Whats with the systemic bias of the GNAA? Skrewler 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Note: User:Timecop is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. This whole vfd is a farce.--Simon.Pole 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As this is a discussion all "votes" which do not provide a rational are to be considered... oh, wait a second, isn't that the job of the closing admin to decide? Gee, maybe I'd better keep the commands to myself then.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 23:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Bearcat 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Every political blogger out there wants it's 5 minutes of fame, and wikipedia really isn't a grounds for that. Google's cache is all you really need, not worth writing about, or reading for that matter. --Depakote 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Bearcat
    • How is this user a sockpuppet? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply not notable. Incognito 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Dawg (yep) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? im a sock puppet simply because I agree with the deletion of this article? Can we atleast see some proof of your inane childish accusation? Thank you. -Incognito 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Same with this one, what criteria are you using? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anybody calls me a sock... will, um... get socked. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Dawg (nope...freakofnurture = legit user) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blogcruft. Reyk 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how this would be inherently less notable than Daily Kos in the absence of a "Canadian automatically equals unimportant" criterion. Bearcat 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Stop using the "better than the worst article" argument, since pages fall and stand on their own merits, not as a group. If you really think that article does not belong in Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a "better than the worst article" argument. If you think it is, you might want to read a bit more carefully. (Hint: it would be absolutely impossible to even begin formulating a claim that Daily Kos was anything less than an instant keep; I'm asking what makes this different.) Bearcat 05:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging, same as Blogging Tories. -- The Invisible Hand 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's eighth edit. Lord Bob 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep __earth 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Slartoff 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly more notable than GNAA, which we have an article on. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? According to Alexa, GNAA is 400,000 while progressive bloggers is 800,000. On top of that, in contrast to progressivebloggers.ca, gnaa's claim to fame is not running their website. Skrewler 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is because being constructive, or being serious, brings notability, or because teenage pranks don't bring notability. Or all three. - Nunh-huh 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Canadians seem to be in agreement that this plays a significant role in Canadian politics. That seems sufficien§t to keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If every Conservative had their way the only things posted on Wikipedia, or any other site for that matter, would be Conservative propaganda. HisHighness420
  • Hey fellow tree-hugger. I hate conservatives too! FUCK BUSH!! Hey, lets stomp them out of wikipedia once and for all, let's get rid of Blogging Tories you can vote here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogging_Tories Thanks, friend.
• Keep Because, as discussed above, this is part of an organised campaign by known trolls. mennonot 17:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Failing that, Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Because, as discussed above, this is part of Progressive Blogger's war on wikipedia. Thank Bob that this is a discussion and not a vote. That means that since there has been no evidence presented that this is important to anyone outside the rabidly incestuous blogging community, it will probably be deleted. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  I choose to believe that you're thanking me. You're welcome! :P Lord Bob 06:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • There's no war on Wikipedia being waged by Progressive Bloggers. There is a war on Wikipedia being waged by a bunch of deletionist trolls called GNAA, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Next time I'll use </sarcasm> to make sure that you understand. It's usually the sign of a weak argument to attack the person rather than simply presenting a compelling reason that they are wrong. Anyone who wants to keep this based upon a "campaign" instead of the evidence should have their recomendation completely discounted, as they are not adressing the issue of this article. I don't care if the GNAA are sodomizing nuns in the name of Cthullu, they have their facts correct - this is a non notable blog zealously defended. The fact that we aren't having a calm and measured discussion about facts speaks volumes, but that instead the arguments seem to be "because canadians say so". Both this and the previous AfD are examples of special interest groups shouting down common sense. Be proud, be very proud.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you should go back and read the comments in chronology. It was the GNAA who introduced the irrationality into these discussions by calling arguments "bullshit" and wikipedia entries "retarded."--Simon.Pole 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, the first really irrational entry I see is - Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          And you still have failed to adress the basic issues of WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, there's nothing irrational about that statement. American bombing is a fact, producing many dead facts. Furthermore, when I am accused of seeing "conspiracies against Canada" (the statement this quote responds to) when Wikipedia has clearly identified a systemic bias against non-American entries, I am not the one being irrational. I did not mince words about how unsavoury it is to have to respond to foreigners saying Canadian entries are not notable. Only from an American point of view would this be seen as "irrational." Just as the view that Iraqis might not want Americans occupying their country is "irrational."--Simon.Pole 02:08, 23 November 2005 (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.