Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bloggers

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Bloggers

Was prodded as (likely) non-notable. Prod tag was removed without explanation by the creator, so it goes here. DMG413 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep There are other pages on Canadian political blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories that seem to be reasonable pages. With a bit of work, this could be OK. ConDemTalk 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable enough. [1] Feezo (Talk) 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The page seems to have been created by Craig.cantin, who appears to have founded the organisation, so most likely vanity. ConDemTalk 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending any third-party verification. No online press results that I can see - has this topic been discussed anywhere else? Ziggurat 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, vanity is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Alexa rank of 175,624 is not that good, but 107,000 Ghits is somewhat impressive. Royboycrashfan 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is not a vanity piece. Green Bloggers is a legit group of bloggers that I happened to spearhead the initiative of creating it. Blogging Tories and Progressive Bloggers have been around for a couple of years, with 300 members each. We've been around for only 7 months, and have 50 over members, and growing. It's importance will only continue to improve. CTV has linked to it during the election as well. Didn't realize my first Wiki article would cause so much grief. If there are legit concerns, why not edit the article instead of this? Craig Cantin
  • Keep Has some merit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After reading about Wikipedia's definition of vanity, I see how it would have been considered as such. I have removed the sentence regarding my founding the site. Hopefully that will be satisfactory. Again, as a new user, I would have thought editing that information would have been less drastic. Craig Cantin.
  • Question Having removed vanity, can you provide neutral point of view reasons as to why it is meritorious? Because the next obsticle is WP:WEB, so you have a case to build. T K E 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see the reason for the quick nomination, as the blog is owned by the username. However, we (AfD Patrollers) are all slacking in welcoming the newcomers and commenting on their talk pages when tagging articles. T K E 07:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It includes in it a number of prominent blogs, such as Frogblog (being the New Zealand Green parties official blog). --Midnighttonight 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn blogcruft. Eusebeus 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I'll comment from a Canadian standpoint. The Green Party has fielded a full set of candidates for the past two elections. The share of the vote for the Green Party is approaching 5%. There is a constituency of people who are interested in knowing more, but are not aware that there are 'green bloggers' out there. Green Bloggers fills that role, like Blogging Tories does for the Conservatives. The rationale for creating this article is because there were a couple of links from Green Wiki pages to Green Bloggers...people were going from Wiki to there, according to my log files. I created the page to satisfy what I believed was an interest in having more than just a couple of links. --Craig.cantin 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know I'm bucking the tide here, but I can't see a single thing about this "group" that makes it notable as a group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this "group" is about is that they (a) hold to a roughly consonant political POV, (b) each (supposedly) have a blog, and (c) add themselves to the Green Bloggers list. Do they do anything as an organization? Do they have any cohesion? Does anyone actually vette whether they hew to the party line, provided there is a genuine set of environmental tenets to which they all adhere? If someone started a similar blog-list called "Friends of Pokemon," would that make for a notable Wikipedia article? Would my Livejournal friends' list qualify for a Wikipedia article? This is beyond fuzzy, folks. RGTraynor 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply If you remove this page, would you not use the same criteria for Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories? Why would they be included, and not this page? Craig.cantin 16:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles for Deletion is a collaborative effort and both of the pages you've mentioned were brought for AfD (as you already know from your post below) and survived that process due to a lack of consensus to delete (which defaults to keep), my personal opinion is that both of those pages should be deleted, but as I said above, this is a collaborative effort and since there was not overwhelming consensus to delete, both of those pages still exist.--Isotope23 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with you, Craig, and if I saw those others come up for AfD, I would certainly vote to Delete. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blog popularity inside the blogosphere is measured by Technorati linkage. Only 6 incoming Technorati links [2]. NN. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply That is a misleading number. Technorati can't judge links based on javascript, nor does everyone use Technorati. It's impossible to logically say there are only 6 links when where are more than 50 members. If I had known how much trouble it would be to offer a page, I don't think I would have bothered. Again, I was only doing it based on the referrals from Wiki to Green Bloggers the site was getting. Craig.cantin 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply You are wrong. Technorati can read JavaScript. Every large blog will ping Technorati, or a Techonari feeder site. Computerjoe's talk 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's not sufficient assertion of notability according to WP:WEB. I really dislike this kind of promotion on Wikipedia. The Green Bloggers are using the Wikipedia to promote their politics, and many of you are condoning it. I don't see how the poor kids in Africa and Southeast Asia with no library access for whom this encyclopedia is being written should care about Green Bloggers. Brian G. Crawford 16:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply If that is the policy, then it should govern all of your pages of this nature. This is the last I will say on this subject. Craig.cantin 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blogging group; qualifies as a non-notable club in my book.--Isotope23 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Context Sorry...I lied. This will be my last comment on this subject. Please take time to review deletion discussions for the Blogging Tories and the Progressive Bloggers (who had two seperate discussions). This discussion should be using the decisions rendered on these three occasions as precedents, if there is actual fairness on Wikipedia. Thank you. Craig.cantin 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Both appear to have ended in no consensus opinions (considering that Blogging Tories was accidentally deleted then restored), which leads me to one precedent: those rendering opinions have a hard time agreeing. The fairness in my opinion is judging Green Bloggers on its own merits.--Isotope23 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but that said would it be disruptive to bring back both those other non-notable blogs to AfD? They don't really deserve entries either. Eusebeus 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete comparison of G-hits: "Blogging Tories," 315,000; "Progressive Bloggers," 411,000; "Green Bloggers," 107,000. 107,000 is impresive enough, but looking through the first few articles, most are using the phrase in a general way and not refering to this particular Canadian group. Also, it is irrelavant to our discussion, but author has posted a comment about this very debate on his blog[3]. --MrFizyx 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: charming. I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies, but I don't care for the newbies biting us. Our jobs here are not to be warm and fuzzy and friendly and all-inclusive; they are to be encyclopedic and informative. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And even the delete opinions have been rather WP:CIVIL; this has been all rainbows and ponies compared to some AfD discussions.--Isotope23 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete is there anything here that you wouldn't learn by actually going to the website in question? No? Then how is an article here on it helpful, other than to promote that website? Derex 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks pretty clearly like vanity to me. pm_shef 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merecat 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Swatjester --Ardenn 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Condem OoskMR 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Condem, Swatjester. I wish it hadn't apparently been created by a principal, but that's not for here; it'd be keepable if it hadn't been. Samaritan 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only website promotion. Radagast83 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's an important group, and Wikipedia should focus more on environmental issues. Munckin 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to 'focus' in on any issues. It's an encylopedia. If by focus you mean have more notable encylopedic articles on the envrionment, than that is acceptable, but if you mean that it should "focus" on the environment by politicing Wikipedia, that is not. Radagast83 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable enough for us Yuckfoo 06:32, 16 April 2006 (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.