Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a lot of teeth-gnashing on both sides but no consensus. A Train take the 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Dreams NewsCenter

Common Dreams NewsCenter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

First deletion reason: Fails WP:Notability -- a Google News Search results in ZERO results. Completely non-notable Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Part of a Walled Garden of the Progressive blogosphere.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin This AfD has been added to a userspace AfD notice board by nom, see [1]. --70.48.71.53 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT a "noticeboard". Adding the AfD there was a mistake which I have reverted. GabrielF 21:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Note : As Oakhouse proves below, nominator's claim of zero Gnewshits is FALSE. There are 222 Gnewshits as of right now. Gnewshits - Fairness & Accuracy For All 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
When I used the search term that this RfD is about and not the generic, I get 3 Gnewshits. Gnewshits.
When I used the search term using NewsCenter as one word, I get Zero Gnewshits. Gnewshits, applying wiki policy WP:AGF the statement is not a false one. Mobile 01Talk 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
A Gnews search for 'commondreams' which is the most common terminology, and would include ALL results also including 'News Center' OR 'Newscenter' yields 221 hits. Any HONEST interpetation of his claim as it relates to the actual site, and not semantics or spelling finds it false. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are two of the 16 articles [2] which I get on Google news: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter#Google_News
I asked Morton to change his comments,[3] because he was clearly incorrect. Travb (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment but Google books shows that it's plugged by The Better World Handbook ("the most comprehensive news site on the web"), cited in print works such as Unveiling the Real Terrorist Mind by Nadia Batool Ahmad and Project Censored's Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories, The 3Rs of George W. Bush, Women and Children First, and Politics and Government in the Age of the Internet. The article's crap, but that's not a reason to delete it. If I wasn't quite so brim-full of good faith, I might think this was a politically motivated attempt to censor someone's political opponents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Often referenced newssite, a search for "Commondreams.org" gets 1.2 million google hits and a search for "Common Dreams" also get over a million hits (but the phrase is not unique to just the website.) --70.48.71.53 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.71.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (But I actually have quite a few edits, which should be obvious by my understanding of Wikipedia. I don't use a formal account, so sue me. --70.48.70.252 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
  • Google Search for "Commondreams.org" --> 1,200,000 hits
  • Google Search for "Common Dreams" --> 1,170,000 hits (but its not a unique phrase, thus many hits are not relevant)
  • Google Search for ""Common Dreams News Center" --> 87,000 hits
  • Google News Search for "Commondreams.org" --> 11 hits
  • Google News Search for "Common Dreams" --> 28 hits (but only about half references the site)
  • Alexa Website Rank for "Commondreams.org" --> 9,253 most popular website on the Internet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.71.53 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Google News Seach for "commondreams" --> [4] ~225 hits Bwithh 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment : So notable that it has its own profile on David Horowitz' 'Discover the Network'. 'popular website founded in 1996' Rename to Common Dreams though - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an Afd on Commondreams.org, it's an Afd on an article about Common Dreams NewsCenter, which is completely unreferenced in the reputable media, which is our yardstick on Wikipedia.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Common Dreams NewsCenter" and Commondreams.org are one and the same. Also, there are references by mainstream sources to the Common Dreams Newscenter: Yahoo News: Literature and Authors, Yahoo News: Bird Flu, The Guardian: 2000 Books Awards to name a few. There are many endorsements by media figures here [8] including PBS's Bill Moyers, and NBC's Don Imus. --70.48.71.53 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could close this AfD Morton and move this article then. The anon is right, they are one and the same. Since 29 October 2005, Common Dreams already redirects to Common Dreams NewsCenterTravb (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Response on your talk page. Travb (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are all trivial references, just links as part of a collection without any writing about the site at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Night Gyr, you looked through 1,050,000 hits on google? You did say "Those are all trivial references". I really don't see how anyone can support the idea that a webpage with over 1 million hits is "non-notable". Travb (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked through the ones linked, and they were. I have yet to see any significant writing about the site other than by itself. Independent, nontrivial sources are necessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't consider the profile on David Horowitz' 'Discover the Network' significant? 'popular website founded in 1996' Or is that you consider 'Discover the Network' trivial ? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Or the Portland Press Herald and Willamette Week Online articles? I can't fathom how Night Gyr claims that a website with 1,050,000 hits on google is not notable. I have a strong feeling that no matter how many sources we find, Night Gyr will not change his mind. How many do we have to find Night Gyr? Travb (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Williamette Week Online article has two sentences about the site and two sentences describing interesting stories. It's pretty trivial. The Portland one isn't online, so I can't check it. The title isn't promising. Horowitz has about a paragraph of information, but that still falls into the "directories" exclusion of sources that don't count for notability, and even if we count it, it's still only a single source. If you can find me another good solid paragraph about the site, then you might have something. The problem is that almost all of the links and sources given are trivial in their information about the site. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The title of the Williamette Week article is: "War on the Web Four sites worth checking out". The Williamette Week author obviously felt like commondreams was "worth checking out". Here is a link to the article: [9] I am interested how you will see this article. As you wrote: "If you can find me another good solid paragraph about the site, then you might have something." Also, please consider the million googlelinks above, etc. Travb (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • MERGE/DELETE as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no matter who nominated it, it falls short of WP:WEB and lacks enough reliable secondary sources to sustain a seperate, non-promotional article. Tom Harrison Talk 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Commondreams is at least mentioned in passing two textbooks on gbooks: Media Now and SAGE's Key Concepts in Journalism Studies. That seems like a start on sourcing, as is the stuff on "A-list blogs" in Politics and Government in the Age of the Internet. After exhausting those, would-be editors could start on the 100+ other books on google books, the stuff on scholar, and the many news reports. Then they could try JSTOR, MUSE, LookSmart, and Factiva. And if they could come up with very clever search terms, they could maybe even try web searches to find reliable sources. More reliable sources for this than for all of Category:Webcomics put together. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yawn yourself. Go do that, or go put the commics up for deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
My attempt at Google Scholar came up with +400 citations: [10]. There are a few incorrect hits but the majority it appears +80% are real citations. Click on the "Cited by XX" links on the results pages to see the RS papers which are citing Common Dreams content. There are more citations of common dreams content than even I expected. --70.48.71.53 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on likelihood that sources do exist, but without prejudice to future AfD listing if they are not found and cited. Seraphimblade 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - give it three months in this current state and then, if no reliable sources are given and the article does not improve, the rouge admins can speedy it and then speedy any attempts at recreation without reliable sources. I'm a Brit, BTW, so no political axe to grind. Moreschi Deletion! 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Assuming good faith about the nomination (and its faulty google/blogosphere assertions), I'm having trouble finding sources on Google Books and Factiva which mention this website in more than a passing way i.e. more than a "recommended site" directory listing or a reference footnote. While the website claims some nice endorsement quotes from various dignitaries, that's not enough to pass WP:WEB. I can't find non-trivial references and there doesn't seem to be any awards won by this site. It's a popular site whose audience clearly extends beyond the blogosphere and into academia and professional political circles. However, wikipedia is not a directory and I haven not been able to find evidence of multiple non-trivial reference which would see this passing WP:WEB. I'm open to new evidence being produced for this afd but I'm !voting delete for now. (And since this article has been around since October 2005 with the attention of multiple editors, I see no reason to give this article a grace period) Bwithh 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails notability due to no sources. Their main role is to copy and reprint articles from other sources, and publish some editorials. If no one's written about them, though, how can we? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website. Edeans 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, This article (if you could call it that) does not appear to serve any purpose to wiki readers other than to redirect them to the Common Dreams Web Site. The article uses questionable terminolgy "according to its website" and "Common Dreams claims on its website " and "claims to refuse corporate money". While the web site itself may well serve a purpose for those wanting information on specific stories, the article itself does not appear to have any merit or value for wikipedia. This AFD is about the Wiki Article and whether it deserves a place in our hallowed halls. The AFD is not about the Common Dreams Web site. Having read what little information there is on this article and followed it's meager amount of links, I find that the article has no purpose or value except taking readers away from Wikipedia.
From WP:NOT#IINFO:
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.
Mobile 01Talk 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the message I left Travb, I canvassed other opinions. I'm perfectly OK with the closer discounting my vote if it looks to them like I solicited support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Angus McLellan you actually do not have any vote for the closer to discount as you haven't voted yet, only commented. Mobile 01Talk
  • Delete simply not notable...definitely looks like promotional spam to me.--MONGO 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN spamvertisement. --Tbeatty 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Highly notable part of the progressive blogosphere. Lots of original content. Exclusive interview with Bill Moyers just a few weeks ago Interview - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 963,000 ghits in main google search. Ten current ghits in Google news search. 31,688 blogs linking in Google blogs search. 298 ghits in Google Books Search. Alexa ranking of 9,253, with 10,537 sites linking in. Google Pagerank of 8. Seems like it would be a perverse interpretation of notability that does not include commondreams.org. --BenBurch 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Cited all over the place and a much used resource on the net. This article cites it alongside New York Times and the BBC [11]. The BBC itself describes Common dreams as a site that "presents a round-up of interesting articles with wide-ranging points of view that have previously appeared in newspapers and journals across the United States."[12]. Also, reason for deletion appears to be false, I found a number of results in Google news - See [13] --Oakhouse 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Such as wikipedia's, which requires the existence of nontrivial independent sources writing about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Is the BBC considered a non-trivial independent source when they write about the CommonDreams website? Yes, I thought it was too.--Oakhouse 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • They cite it, but don't write anything about it. Can we even do anything from that? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • They do indeed write about it, and it is sourced in the article. Is it not?--Oakhouse 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • A grand total of one sentence. We don't make articles about everything that gets a single sentence on the BBC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But with the over 1 million references, the 340 Lexis Nexis references, the Google Print references, the google news reference etc, how can this article fail notability? Travb (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough; keep for now. - Mike Rosoft 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Night Gyr in that it is non-notable website rehashing news links. In fact, the website featured this spam advertisement [14] among the others contained there doing the same promotional write-ups. Without the support from other references, it appears the article fails WP:WEB per Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • JungleCat, where do you get "spam"? That's an op-ed from the UK Independent, according to the citation at the top of the page. Op-eds, no matter the sources, are frequently POV-promotional or self-promotional in nature. There's certainly no evidence that the author paid CDNC to run his article; in fact, probably the reverse.--Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by Jungle Cats complaints too. Travb (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that Jungle Cat's "spam site" criticism don't make sense. Bwithh 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but improve per {{primarysources}}. Bearing in mind that WP:N is a guideline, as is its derivative WP:WEB, this site does not strictly pass that guideline based on what is available online. To my own surprise I could find no full-length articles treating the website as their subject. That said, the citations speak for themselves -- this website not only republishes articles from other sources (using standard newswire contracts, as far as I can tell), its material (a portion of which is original) is republished and cited elsewhere, and it has been mentioned or cited by almost every major news organization in the US and UK, either because it was the only stable URL for an article or because it was the only online source, period, for some. We can certainly verify that much about it. The website predates Wikipedia (not that being a non-profit is an automatic pass) and predates virtually everything known today as a blog, and has a high Alexa ranking. (Its importance may be fading in the blog era.) Deleting an article such as this one simply because by interpreting our rules down to the last dot on the i really is making Wikipedia worse and the first time I would say that WP:IAR applies. I suggest a three-month grace period for a robust source search including via the publisher (who surely knows when he has been interviewed/profiled). --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Improve or delete - It reads like an advertisement or press release. Jinxmchue 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of contributors alone makes this a no brainer, as does its citation in several textbooks mentioned above by Angus. Gamaliel 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable source of news, professionally edited. AnAccount2 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems like a simple mistake of Morton not knowing how Google searches work. I am surprised he has not come back to close this himself. Anyway Commondreams is obviously notable we cite it here quite often, then again, I guess if its proven not notable then all the CommonDreams citations could be removed as well ... So CommonDreams with its millions of google hits and immense citations above of references to them etc, seem to be beyond the requirements of WP:WEB. --NuclearZer0 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Ignoring the bad faith in the nomination, fails WP:WEB. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-spam-troll-cruft--RCT 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say its spam, trolling or cruft? I don't think it comes across as spam and its definitely not trolling or cruft. You wouldn't be !voting simply on the basis of your political views, would you? I hate to say it but thats the impression one might get from looking at your user page and your history Bwithh 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User contributions is 21 edits. As per: Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted"
Further Fellow-edit, you did not explain why.Travb (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would have no objection to someone starting up a stub based solely around the sources Angus and others mention, but there is nothing on the current page that is sourced, encyclopedic, or worthwhile. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V with no prejudice to the creation of an article in its place that meets policy. TheronJ 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Editors here continue to cite WP:WEB this article meets WP:WEB#Criteria it is mentioned by other news organizations, as mentioned above. Travb (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the current version of the article that IMHO (1) qualifies as a "non-trivial" news reference, or (2) is worth keeping. As I've said, if someone wants to re-create the article so that it identifies and conforms to the non-trivial references, I would have no objection. TheronJ 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per aboveOo7565 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation with non-trivial sources. Being cited isn't the same as being written about, and I can't see anything more than passing mentions. A lot of "keep" arguments being based on "This number is big" - notability isn't the same as popularity or prominence on the web. Trebor 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's true. But the fact is that some of the numbers are big, and that poses a significant problem in finding if there are, or aren't any WP:N-fulfilling reports. If there are 101 ghits, it's easy enough to skim through them. If there are $BIGNUM, it isn't. Likewise, separating all the trivial news reports isn't easy. I still think that skimmimg recent journalism/media studies textbooks would be the best way for people who want this kept to conclusively prove that it is notable, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to check. Garage bands have more appeal than anything concerning Unitedstatesian politics. The moral of the story seems to be that editors should use the amnesia test when writing articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well if and when someone finds more in-depth sources, it can be recreated. Just not as it stands. Trebor 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Not for the first time, I am really concerned about the AfD process. No one here, except Fair and myself have added anything to this article. User:Trebor Rowntree asks other people to find more in-depth sources otherwise the article will be deleted, but adds nothing to the article himself. Another nominator for deletion asks others to "Improve or delete", another user acknowledges this is "bad faith in the nomination" Travb (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to add something the article yourself in order to express an opinion on it. Trebor 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Update from Nominator: Several of you have pointed me to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0&q=%22common+dreams%22&btnG=Search to demonstrate what purports to be non-trivial descriptions of the Common Dreams NewsCenter in these articles. I have looked through ALL of the ghits, and none satisfy our requirements under WP:NN, as they are all trivial (i.e. none of them do more than casually identify the name of the website, and do not go beyond that to describe anything about the Common Dreams NewsCenter), as Admin Night Gyr states above. So, it still fails our requirements here under WP:NN, and, I might add, WP:RS if used as a reference in other articles. Wikipedia relies not upon our own evaluations of notability, but on the substantive mention of a subject by reputable sources. It's why a Google News Search is relevant, but a straight Google hits search isn't.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider http://www.discoverthenetwork.org to be a non-reputable blog, and not WP:RS except with reference to very limited info about Horowitz and his org.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completly - discoverthenetworks lacks basic requirements that we demand of reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Or non-multiple? Tom Harrison Talk 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What about the Portland Press Herald and Willamette Week Online articles? Why is it other users responsibility to find sources for this article? When Morton's only contribution to this article before this AfD was to delete sections of the article which were twice reverted as vandalism?[15][16] When User:Hipocrite acknowledges that this is "bad faith in the nomination". Morton this statment: "a Google News Search results in ZERO results." is false and misleading, and I again encourage Morton devonshire to change this misleading sentence. Travb (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Why is it other users responsibility to find sources for this article?" According to WP:V, burden of proof is on editors who want to include the material, not those seeking its removal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Night Gyr, I am aware of WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. This article has met WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, as shown above. As per: WP:BB "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on" those who want to delete this article are asking others to "fix [the] problems". Does this AfD help build an encyclopedia? Travb (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If the Discover The Networks and Portland references are so notable, why do they keep getting deleted from the article. I have done some research and included 3 references that highlight the notability of this article, this was all reverted. It doesn't matter whether the references are considered to be reputable, it only matters that they support the claim for notability. I was going to change my vote to KEEP as the article had improved over the last few days. Now it has been reverted and brought back to a nothing entry, my vote stands. Mobile 01Talk 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Well-known site. Referenced in multiple textbooks. Explicitly mentioned as notable in some form or fashion by Don Imus, Ralph Nader and Bill Moyers (as examples). Cited as a source by other news providers and a number of Wikipedia articles. WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy and should not be used to wikilawyer a legitimate notable site to deletion. Vassyana 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. Trebor 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith does not preclude acknowledging that arguments against the article are wikilawyering based on POV when perjoratives are openly used to describe the site. AGF only applies in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The nominator has repeatedly made demonstratably false arguments (e.g. no Google News hits), which is hardly good faith. Vassyana 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no POV on the article, I really couldn't care less, so accusations of wikilawyering are still in bad faith. Trebor 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read my comments. I did not accuse you of wikilawyering. Your defensiveness is not justified, unless you are a sock for the nominator or have used POV pejoratives. (Neither applies to you as far as I can tell, so I don't understand why you're twisted up over my comments.) Vassyana 11:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I !voted delete based on a failure to meet notability guidelines (or in other words WP:WEB). So I felt that your comments were implicitly aimed at me and everyone else who !voted for those reasons. And see my debate with NuclearZero below as to why this isn't wikilawyering, it's simply a standard interpretation of the notability guidelines. Trebor 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete or merge. As observed by MortonDevonshire, the site is a Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement and part of a Walled Garden of the lunatic fringe blogosphere. It does no reporting of its own; it merely recycles news stories available elsewhere that serve a left-wing agenda. Responding to concerns expressed by Travb this AfD helps to build an encyclopedia. Any notable material about this site can be merged with another article, producing one good article rather than a couple of lame ones. Dino 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Whether or not it is part of the "lunatic fringe blogosphere" is irrelevent. It is cited in textbooks, other news media, highly popular, endorsed broadly by a number of more-than-notable figures and otherwise notable. Vassyana 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • lunatic fringe blogosphere ... lame articles? ... The arguement that "it merely recycles news stories" is almsot the equivalent of stating we should delete Google news for doing the same. How about Yahoo news? It seems that notability is not based on them "reycling news stories", nor is the reason for keeping or deleting articles based around it, luckily. --NuclearZer0 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, Google News is well-covered by the reputable media. Thanks for making my notability argument (spelled a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t, BTW).  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually other then its founding because of it steeming from Google, its not. So we are once again left with an arguement that would lead to the removal of Yahoo News and Google News. --NuclearZer0 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely a notable website. I've been visiting it periodically for years. Everyking 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Morton_devonshire, Everyking also mentions that the site is notable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason, and as Fair wrote in the comment below, when you examine your reasons for deleting this article, (like the dubious Zero google hits and dubious non-notability claim) Morton, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is all you are left with. Travb (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be your opinion. The other reasons remain valid, and you have not overcome the notability requirement, which is your burden.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant that my familiarity with the site gives me reason to think that it's notable, not that it should be kept because "I like it". Everyking 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment : I ask that the ruling admin take into account the bad faith aspects of the Morton's nomination. 1) Neither the Wiki article nor Common Dreams are Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement nor self-promotion and Morton's trollish, baiting, derogatory characterizations do not help this process. Morton seems confused about Walled Garden's as well. There's NO aspect of CD that constitutes any 'walled garden'. Joe Farah's G2 and The Debka File - sites you have to pay $20 bucks a month to read ARE. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: Interviews with Bill Moyers, cited by New York Times, Portland Press Herald, Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Willamette Week, and Fox news. Plus, used in text books. EDIT: WP:N is met by all this. - Denny 14:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary: The primary dispute seems to be whether this site meets any of the criteria identified on WP:WEB. As far as I can tell, the answer is no. The absolute best source I have seen offered above is a two sentence description of the site in a book that is apparently only held in four libraries in the entire world. WP:WEB#Criteria specifically defines "a brief summary of the content" as "trivial" coverage, so the Better World Handbook therefore fails to satisfy even one of the multiple non-trivial independent references required to establish notability, and the Better World Handbook is the best source I have seen offered. With no sources to establish notability, the remaining arguments are "I like this website (ILIKEIT)" and "Morton is a poo poo head (IDONTLIKEMORTON)." Neither of those is a valid argument, and therefore, AFAICT, the site doesn't meet notability criteria. We're not in the business of writing articles about popular websites, we're in the business of writing sourced articles about notable websites. No one has offered even one non-trivial source, much less multiple such sources, and I therefore recommend deletion. Thanks, TheronJ 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary Its notable enough that multiple newspapers use it for a source and reference it. There are lots of popular sites on the web, like YTMND however they are not used as sources for major newspapers. The fact that major newspapers use them as a source goes to show the site is notable. If you would like a closed examination it would be to look at Digg.com, where as Digg is not referenced by Washington Post, they are not because they are popular but not notable. Where as Common Dreams is both. Its hard to see the line where popularity and notability divide, however when major newspapers and not just average people begin using it as a source, its clear its passed that line. So how do we find out if a news source is notable? The basic idea of a news source is to cover other items and people, not to attract coverage for itself. Much like Schools do not require sources to show their notability, it makes little sense why a news source would, considering the popularity and notability (enough to be cited by the biggest national papers). It seems to say that Washington Post and other national papers find them notable enough to include thier views and cite them, but since there is little evidence of someone writing about them, they fail WP:N, is a bit of wikilawyering. What happened to the spirit of Wikipedia and not the letter of the policy? --NuclearZer0 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Digg.com is notable in itself, as a widely-discussed example of Web 2.0 -- discussed in reputable media, not just blogs. No such notability exists for CDNC.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure what you are talking about. Digg.com was used as an example of a site that is popular but not cited, showing that CDNC is more notable since major newspapers actually will cite them and reference them, as opposed to Digg which really is just a popular website, notable for layout not news. --NuclearZer0 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There's been no consensus that being cited indicates notability, that's why that doesn't appear in the guidelines. This isn't wikilawyering over technical details, this is making up a new definition of notability and saying it is "in the spirit". That doesn't work. Trebor 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please AGF. I am stating that we adhere to the spirit of the guidelines, stating that an article cannot exist without sources is false, hence the WP:SCHOOL example. My point isnt that citations are required to be notable, its that citations for a news site are an example of notability. How can they be not notable yet often references by the most notable sources in the world? That makes little sense. As I stated, you will not see Digg being used as a reference, however you will see CDNC. --NuclearZer0 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please AGF yourself, wiklawyering is a pejorative term. And my point still stands: this isn't wikilawyering by people arguing "delete". Your argument for notability (and I'm not commenting on the validity of it here) isn't expressed by the principles or spirit of WP:WEB or WP:N. Nobody is arguing over technical points, they are saying that the principle - multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources - isn't met. So by all means make your arguments for notability, but don't make false attacks on the other side. Trebor 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are so hostile, and I really do not appreciate it. But you have yet to counter the point so I will just ignore it and ask you to take a wiki break if you are stressed out. As I stated they are cited by the most prominent news companies in the world, that shows notability. If you think I am wrong, show me another news source with as many citations that isnt notable. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not being hostile; I'm saying that accusations of wikilawyering are in bad faith and just not true. I'm not in the least bit stressed out because, as I said earlier, I have no feelings either way regarding the subject. My point is that nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say that being cited shows notability. There's no need for me to show anything, as it you are the one trying to extend the standard notability definition. Trebor 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you keep repeating yourself, but I already explained this. Who said its part of WP:N? I am stating that much like Schools notability is derived from a different criteria for different items. The reason WP:N is not policy is because of that very fact, it snot all encompassing. I am explaining that being cited by many of the most popular news agencies is a show of notability. --NuclearZer0 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, you implied it was part of WP:N when you made accusations of wikilawyering. Trebor 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Um no, I have been specifically stating that the criteria in that guideline is not appropriate. Did you read the massive paragraph? It makes comparisons to WP:SCHOOL where schools are deamed notable without having someone write about them, etc. As for accusations of wikilawyering, it wasnt meant as a attack, its a term. Seeing as there has been a mountain of WP:INSERT GUIDELINE HERE talk, it seems there is much wikilawyering going on. I havent seen so many guidelines since my Arbcom hearing =) --NuclearZer0 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikilaywering is a pejorative term, so there's an implied attack there. And I don't think any wikilawyering has gone on; it's not simply quoting and using policies and guidelines, but dwelling on technical details which override the spirit. But this argument isn't really relevant to the deletion debate, so I will accept it as a difference of opinions (and advise that using the term doesn't normally help your cause). On topic again, I disagree that being cited indicates notability; I think a topic needs to have been specifically written about. Trebor 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies if you have repeatedly taken offense to something I stated was not said to be offensive. I do however believe people are citing quite a bit much of Wiki essays and guidelines and it seems even stating them as policy, which is wrong. There used to be a essay on quoting a mess of WP:THINGY's where did it go? --NuclearZer0 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:WOTTA? If so, you missed the point of the essay. That didn't mean don't quote policy and guidelines, it meant try not to abbreviate everything you quote. Trebor 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Website review: [17] --NuclearZer0 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Nuclear, you mentioned above that the Washington Post had cited to Common Dreams. Can you give us a link or a citation to the article? That may clear this up. Thanks, TheronJ 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here's a link to the Guardian Newspaper's "pick of the best online journalism" which includes Commondreams alongside New Scientist, Atlantic Monthly etc. [18] I don't understand what's going on here. Commondreams is simply one of the biggest resource sites on the internet for political essays and comments, and has been for years. People above have provided ample evidence of its notability. Way more notable than 50% of the articles on wikipedia which include articles about schools and minority fictional characters. And the page meets all requirements. Can anyone explain how some background detail about a well known internet journal - that carries inteviews and original work by nobel prize winners and various household names - is not notable enough to be of interest to readers?--Oakhouse 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's misleading. The Guardian article you refer to just provides a link to Commondreams, it doesn't discuss it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No comments about the rest of the paragraph? --NuclearZer0 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:WEB, as discussed by Trebor above. If you're having trouble understanding Wiki policy, try WP:HELPDESK.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the WP:HELPDESK, perhaps you can ask them the difference between a policy and guideline since you don't seem to know what it is. WP:WEB says at the very top in a big box "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes." --NuclearZer0 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Same goes for WP:N where it states: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. My arguement is that common sense is not being made here. The page is cited as shown above by some of the major newspapers and listed on Google News and cited in numerous journals and papers as Google Scholar points out. This is my last post here as I do not want others to seem unwelcomed to comment. PS I have you found out somewhere along the way that there is more then 1 google hit, you never changed your comment so I wasnt sure. WP:HELPDESK can help you with setting up google searches, its pretty basic syntax. --NuclearZer0 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Common Dreams is clearly notable. The initiator of this AfD is obviously on an ideological crusade to 'clean' Wikipdia of views different than his own. Oldporter 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: this editor is a single purpose account. His/her first edit was three days ago, and all seven or so of Oldporter's edits are to the Common Dreams article. (See contribution history). TheronJ 14:02, 9 February 2007 (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.