Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

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. There were 11 legitimate votes to delete (discounting 1 sockpuppet delete vote), and 8 legitimate votes to keep (discounting 8 sockpuppet keep votes). -- BD2412 talk 03:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Bloggers

  • Delete nn website. Alexa rating over 3 million, claimed membership 100. Accompanied by essay on politics, which isn't bad but isn't encyclopedic either. Article is verifiable only by the very website it's about, which sounds to me like a dubious source. See talk page discussion. Friday 7 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
  • Keep Progressive Bloggers are one of two prominent political blogging groups in the Canadian blogosphere. Importance to Canadian political discourse is explained in the so-called "essay on politics." Assertion "verifiable only by website" incorrect. Material in the talk page discussion provides verification the Progressive Bloggers - Blogging Tories division to be an overriding political division recoginized by bloggers.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  • keep Progressive Bloggers is an important source of informed progressive commentary in Canada. The proposal to delete is obviously politically motivated, and should not, therefore, be taken seriously--just another enemy of free speech, here, folks. Dr.Dawg 8 July 2005
    • This is this user's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
  • keep We know that the Right loves stepping on every bit of media the left has, we all know they'd love nothing better than for every webpage, newspaper, radio station and tv station to be like FOX News, but this is ridiculous. User:HisHighness420
    • Don't be afraid to use 'Show Preview' when editing. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
  • keep Progressive Bloggers represents the majority opinion of Canadians MUST therefore stay. User:abacus
    • This is this user's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't about the politics of the page. I actually like what I'm reading there. This is about an article that, in my interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, is suspect. It also fails to meet criteria on Wikipedia:Websites. Also, I believe it's only fair to disclose that User:Simon.Pole above has a personal interest in the page, being the creator and (almost) only editor. Friday 8 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
  • Kick It Comments re Simon Pole seem accurate as well as the problems with not meeting criteria...
First and only edit by 198.53.129.218 as noted by Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:16 (UTC).
  • Comment Progressive Bloggers meets Wikipedia:Websites criteria, having an effect outside its core audience of progressive contributers, specifically in the realm of public political debate in Canada. Progressive Bloggers also meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, as stated already, being the subject of much public discussion in the Canadian blogosphere.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
  • Inaccurate Comments Above Progressives AKA socialists in Canada comprise approx. 25% of population... They do not represent the majority of Canadians and even if the did, it would be completely irelevent to this discussion...
Second edit by 198.53.129.218 as noted by Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:16 (UTC).
  • Comment The interest of a critic of Socialism or Progressivism in this debate shows that the Progressive Bloggers have an effect outside their direct participants. Such an interest would also seem to verify information in the Wikipedia entry.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a roaring commie, but I still echo Friday's comments. And before we see more 'first and only' votes, most of us can smell a rat pretty quickly. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
  • Comment - The 'Inaccurate Comment' Above is Inaccurate, + other information The Progressive Bloggers represents all types of political stripes - not just socialists. There are Liberal blogs in the group, NDP (or socialist) blogs, Green Party Blogs. The majority of the affiliates however, are unaffiliated with any Party in Canada and have joined because they consider themselves to be progressive thinkers or progressive in their politics. Progressive Bloggers is a group aggregate of the centre-left blogs in Canada. The group was started on May 1 and already has 100+ members (111 to be precise as of this writing). I would assert that the fast growth alone would show that the group has growing influence in the Canadian blogosphere. The site was also mentioned by The Toronto Star's media watcher/critic Antonia Zerbasias in a web-log she wrote online here: Blogarrhea. I will note that as I'm one of the founding members of the site's concept and creation, I've got an obvious conflict of interest and will not vote 1 way or the other on whether to keep or kick the entry... just providing some additional information to the Wilkpedia Community - Scott Tribe
First and only edit by 216.58.62.208 as noted by Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:06 (UTC).
  • Comment In Canada the Conservative Party is left of center politically, The Liberal Party is deemed socialist/fascist, the NDP is considered outright communist and the Greens are the same socialist/fascist mix as the Liberals with the exception of a stronger affinity for the environment and a special somkable herb. All three of the parties mentioned above fall into the "socialist" category. This conservative is showing interest only because of the posts on this site: http://www.simonpole.ca/ where the author is begging his readers to support his submission. In order to be fair and balanced I'm providing a different point of view. I believe that the submission should stand or fall on it's merits and not stand solely because it was voted on by members of the aforementioned "socialist" group.
Third edit by 198.53.129.218 as noted by Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:16 (UTC).
  • Comment To verify the character and importance of Progressive Bloggers, examine how Jim Elve, publisher of BlogsCanada and an authority on citizen journalism, treats the group. (BlogsCanada awards the annual Top Blogs award that is recognized by such pre-eminent Canadian journalists as Maclean's columnist Paul Wells, who shows it prominently on his website. Jim Elve is considered an expert on blogging by the national media. A list of national media for which he has served as an expert can be found in this post.) In Jim Elve's Canada Day post on Canadian Patriotism, he takes the Progressive Bloggers to represent one half of the Canadian political blogosphere (with values as indicated in the Wikipedia entry) and the Blogging Tories the other. The 80+ commentors that participated in the ensuing discussion also accept Elve's understanding, and so show the community accepts the status of the Progressive Bloggers, as described in the Wikipedia article.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)
  • keep Progressive Bloggers is an effort at free speech, something which is guaranteed in Canada's Constitution in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What we are seeing is an attempt to stifle free speech, and this should not be allowed to suceed. There is a place for both sides of the argument, both left and right, this is fundemental to to the political dialectic. - Scott Robarts
First and only edit by 24.87.176.158 as noted by Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:03 (UTC).
Well, to be precise, he took two edits to make this one comment. Aaron Brenneman
  • Weak keep - but as sockpuppet votes approach the RickK Limit, my vote is subject to change. I remind the article's author that drumming up "new user" keep votes from the audience of SimonPole.ca may be considered sock/meatpuppetry by other Wikipedia users and admins. These votes are frowned upon on Wikipedia, may be discarded at the option of administrators - and, most importantly, may result in many delete votes on the grounds that if a site has to use sockpuppets to win a vote, it's inherently non-notable. Just a reminder. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Few bloggers are notable. To quote Gary Trudeau, isn't blogging basically for angry, semi-employed losers who are too untalented to get real jobs in journalism? If the market really valued what they have to say, wouldn't someone pay them for it? Wikipedia is full enough of blogger articles as it is. I don't see why they're the exception to the no self-published authors rule. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
    • Comment - So does that mean the market doesn't value what we publish on Wikipedia because nobody's paying us? --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
      • To an extent, yes. I imagine if any wikipedian could be paid by Britannica to write/edit an encyclopedia they would take it. Unfortunately, 99% of wikipedia contributors are not qualified to do so. Wikipedia editors do not have their own articles in wikipedia or any other encyclopedia (at least, not for being editors of wikipedia). Bloggers are in much the same boat. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
  • Comment Progressive Bloggers is also noteable because hit Canadian recording artist Matthew Good is a contributing member.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
  • Comment The importance of the political orientation of the Progressive Bloggers is stressed much in the argument to keep this article. Yet, any Canadian-themed blog can join. The site itself appears to be a listing of blogs rather than a community, per se. Seems strange that such a looseknit group has an cohesive political agenda. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's political ideas here, I'm just trying to explain my personal opinon that this article is not encyclopedic. I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Friday 8 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
    • Comment Friday misrepresents the nature of Progressive Bloggers. It states clearly in the Progressive Bloggers entry that any Canadian-themed blog can apply for membership. Moderators then review the applying blog to see if it meets the criteria for membership (as spelled out in the entry). As also stated in the entry, membership has been revoked if blogs deviate from the stated goals of the group.
    • Friday claims Progressive Bloggers is a listing of blogs. Again the opposite of this is explictly spelled out in the entry. Progressive Bloggers has Daily Kos style user diaries directly on its site. The community also votes directly on which member contributions are the best. Member content is dynamically brought to the website directly upon publication by RSS feed. These are all features shared by similar collective websites listed in the Wikipedia Online Communities entry.
    • I should also state that in no way is Wikipedia being hijacked for a soapbox. It is necessary on this page to make a case to prevent deletion. Like other political parties and organizations around the world that have Wikipedia entries, the political mission of Progressive Bloggers must be stated clearly. However, in keeping with the Wikipedia entries of other political organizations, the actual Progressive Bloggers article does not in any denouce opposing views or attempt to convert others to its views. Like the entries for parties and other organizations, a concise mission statement is given.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Delete per R. fiend. Wikipedia is not a blog directory (yet). Quale 8 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure why an entry being blog-related is ispo facto grounds for deletion.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure all political blogs are considered important by those who read and write them, but who outside the blogosphere knows or cares? This particular blog is less than three months old, and if the most recent entry at SimonPole.ca is any indication, they're a bit insecure. "Some American gun nut" indeed. Isomorphic 8 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
    • Comment Is using the phrase "some American gun nut" outside Wikipedia grounds for deletion? I just want to be clear what the rules are for people who might live in other countries.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
      • No, of course it's not grounds for deletion. I favor deletion because Wikipedia is not an internet directory, and I'm not convinced that the site warrants an encyclopedia article. The gun nut comment, and the ones following it, were funny because apparently you can't imagine why anyone would argue for deletion unless they disagreed with your politics. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Wikipedia policies. Isomorphic 8 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
        • Comment No disrespect to Americans, you're a fine people, but I just don't think an American is capable of passing judgement on a Canadian political website and its relationship to Canadian politics. This is the point I tried to make in the original discussion page.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  • Keep I am a member of Progressive Bloggers and the article is an accurate depiction of what this political weblog is all about -- we aren't trying to sell anyone anything and we have a broad membership, so PB is neither dubious or unverifiable. As far as whether we meet the "website" criteria, PB is already having an impact in Canadian political discussion. It provides a valuable new support for Canada's progressive blogs -- we just finished a bruising fight for the gay marriage bill, and the decriminatlization of marijuana posession will be coming up in the fall, not to mention the Gomery inquiry, the impact of the Liberal/NDP budget ammendments, and whether the government will fall over the corporate tax cut vote. I note that the Wikipedia has entries for a number of American Political Weblogs like Daily Kos and MyDD, but there are no Canadian sites on your list. And yes, this is my first vote here -- I didn't realize that the Wikipedia had such a thing as a "delete" vote procedure nor did I know that the Progressive Bloggers article was being considered for deletion until I logged onto the PB site and saw the notice about this. But if my vote in favour of this article is not welcome, just because it is my first vote, then OK -- though I would hope that you would consider the merits of the points I have made. --Fornssler 8 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
Saying up front "this is my first vote" (e.g. edit) makes me happy as I don't have to chase it down. So thank you! - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable Proto t c 8 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
  • Delete. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
  • keep Progressive Bloggers is a loosely formed group of Canadian Bloggers that share simular political and social interests. It provides diary entries for those who wish to join but can't for their own reseason run a blog of their own, This deletion requion is obviously politically motivated. PhilipQ 8 July 2005
User's first... Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, I'm giving up. Let the meat puppet in. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mike Brock precedent. This group of bloggers is notable, although individual bloggers may not be, simply because it does have an effect on Canadian politics. Ralph Goodale criticized Monte Solberg in the house of commons for posting on his blog about another blog. If the sockpuppets keep roaring in though, I'm going to be voting to delete. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
    • User has 1811 edits. ;) --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity, promotional. My first post to Wikipedia. I'm a regular reader of many of the blogs listed on the Progressive Bloggers site and consider myself a progressive Canadian (voting NDP or Liberal in all previous elections). While (most of) the blogs published on the site are coherent contributions to political discourse, Progressive Bloggers is really nothing more than a blogroll (contrary to Simon Pole's claim that it is a political organization). It cannot be compared to the likes of Daily Kos which is a site whose impact is felt outside the blogosphere. Blogging in Canada is booming, but still has negligible impact on the overall political public discourse. The recent Gurmant Grewal tapes fiasco was really the first time a blog-driven story was given much prominence in the mainstream media. When you consider that Canadian publications like the Hill Times and Bourque's online newswatch don't yet have Wikipedia entries after years as players on the political scene, it's a bit presumptuous to think Progressive Bloggers is ready to make the cut. SombreroJack 8 July 2005
      • user SombreroJack first and only edit
    • Comment The assertion that blogging "has negligible impact on the overall political public discourse" is challenged. A recent Ipso-Reid poll revealed 42% of Canadian internet users have read blogs. (42% is a significant number, as Canadians have one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world). Of that number, roughly 50% are university graduates and between the ages 18-34 -- an influential and computer-savy part of the population.
    • The idea "blog-driven story was given much prominence in the mainstream media" is a red herring. Blogs themselves are part of the mainstrea media in Canada. Many politicans and national political players keep blogs, foremost among them Monte Solberg and Warren Kinsella, and are widely recognized for doing so. Prominent journalists such as Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne also keep blogs that provide daily breaking news and commentary.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned, Progblog is a relevant and important part of the Canadian blogging community, and does seem to provide a space for the more lefty-leaning writers. It's not a political organization, but it does represent the most important aggregation of this type of Canadian Blog. Finally: because bourque and the hill times don't have a wiki entry doesn't mean that this is undeserving. --An MP 8 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.129.218 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 July 2005 - users fourth edit on this page
  • Comment This Wikipedia entry is already being referred to as an authority in the Canadian Blogosphere. A prominent right-wing blogger has used it to establish a definition of "progressive" politics, with ensuing criticism and discussion. Deleting the entry now would undermine the relevance of Wikipedia to Canadians, and interfere with political debate in our country.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • comment Way too funny. The conservative blogger referred to above is one that is actually being courted by the progressives to join them. What's really funny is that the Blogger in question uses the P.B. wiki entry to show a descrepency between the P.B.'s and the current wiki entry on political progressivism.
    • I'm sure political debate in Canada will grind to a standstill. Besides, I'm not convinced this article is authoritative enough that it should be seen as an authority at the moment.-R. fiend 8 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
      • Comment "What's really funny is that the Blogger in question uses the P.B. wiki entry to show a descrepency between the P.B.'s and the current wiki entry on political progressivism." -- I hope he moves his criticism, which is interesting and actually part of the current Canadian debate, to the Progressive Bloggers Wikipedia page. If the Progressive Blogger entry is maintained, I am sure it will see this kind of criticism and development in the future.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bloggercruft.  Grue  8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree that blogging-related material is ipso facto grounds for deletion.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  • comment I love the process here. I am attacked for making my first post, even though I have been using Wikipedia for years--a good way to head off ProgBlog supporters at the pass. Then I note that votes are arbitrarily disallowed when the tally is made at the end. Something smells here, and it isn't roses. User:Dr.Dawg
    • Maybe you're a victim of the Vast Right Wing Conspiricy... Please keep in mind that, out in the real world, things work differently than here in Canada. In the real world those on the political left can't expect to put ideas out and have them universially accepted as happens in Canada. If you continually expect folks to accept you and your ideas because you simply exist you're going to be continually disappointed...
    • Nope, there's no conspiracy--it's out in the open. Your post gives the game away. Americans are calling the shots on Wikipedia. And the above comment indicates, typically, that the mere existence of a left-wing site (sort of) is an attempt to have our ideas "universally accepted," rather than simply expressed. So much for free speech. Go back to Faux News, which is obviously what you'd like Wikipedia to be. By the way, this is my third post. Do I get to vote now?
      • Nope! -R. fiend 8 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disappoint you. I'm Canadian and you should very well know that we don't get fox news up here unless it's part of a satelite package. Oh, please bear in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox as is noted with your desire to "simply express" your views. If you'd like to know more about me, look here: www.nomoresocialisim.blogspot.com
        • You haven't disappointed me in the least. Your agenda, judging from your blog, is clear: you simply want to shut down a political POV that differs from yours. Will Wikipedia get into the censorship game? Stay tuned--lots of right-whingers afraid of views other than their own here.
  • Comment Why, why, why are some people pretending this is a political issue? This is so not about right v left, America v Canada, or any of that. I would like to ask everyone to vote and discuss on the merits of the article, not on your opinion of the political beliefs involved. I like progressive politics, and IMO America is quite backward compared to Canada, but that's not the issue. It looks like certain supporters of the article (and apparently, the website itself) are determined to take any criticism of the article as a slam on their beliefs. We're not trying to decide which political opinions are correct, we're trying to decide if this article is right for Wikipedia. Simple facts to help you vote: the site in question has only 100 members, and its traffic ranking is very, very low. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Other articles about websites with similiar membership and traffic are routinely deleted without all the fuss. Friday 8 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
    • Comment Friday's claim the political nature of Progressive Bloggers is irrelevent is disingenuous. Above, Friday himself draws attention to the group's adherence to a political mission as grounds for deletion, saying it "seems strange that such a looseknit group has an cohesive political agenda." Friday also seems to be generally against articles of a political nature, and statements of political belief that are necessarily included, saying,"Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox."--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not pretending anything. ProgBlog has over 100 affiliate blogs, and is a kind of meeting-place for progressive commentary--not just a list of blogs. The article seemed reasonable enough to me, and offered an intelligent way into a thoughtful part of the blogosphere. The reaction to it, on the other hand, seems a little off to me. First, regulars hurrying to point out that some of the posts are from first-timers. Then the sheer inanity of some of the comments themselves, such as the one claiming that our support was based upon wanting "universal acceptance for our ideas" (which often conflict, incidentally), and contrasting Canada with "the real world" (by which I take it s/he means the Red States). Admit it, Friday--there *is* a political dimension. How often do you get people actively trying to censor a point of view here? DrDawg 8 July 2005 18:00 (DST)
      • Comment I'll certainly admit that a lot of people seem to see this VfD as a political issue. However, I maintain that those people are missing the point of Wikipedia. I advise you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources, then read this article again. Original writings on politics are great, but they don't go on Wikipedia. Listings of websites are great, but they also don't go on Wikipedia. Those two things combined into one article also does not go on Wikipedia. Friday 8 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
        • Comment I take issue with the assertion that there is "original research" in the Progressive Bloggers entry. Statements there are widely held views. I again make the point that an American is not qualified to judge what is original in Canadian political life.--Simon.Pole 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
      • Comment Simon, I don't think you're understanding me. I will attempt to be clear. My point is that the VFD discussion should not revolve around politics, it should revolve around the appropriateness of the article. However, you do have a point: my comment casting asparagus on the notion that "Progressive Bloggers" have an identifiable ideology was ill-informed and irrelevant. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with how your blogmates feel. I'm not trying to dispute the accuracy of what you say about the political leanings of certain segments of the Canadian blogosphere. I'm merely saying that this article is not Wikipedia material. People who're voting Delete here are expressing disapproval of the article, not the Progressive Bloggers themselves. You should try to see that distinction. Friday 8 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
        • Comment Friday, I would go for that distinction if your rightist acolytes here did. You know, and I know, that this is a political discussion, and the "Nay" votes are votes against the POV, not the article. Otherwise, how can you explain the presence in Wikipedia of Mike Brock?
  • Delete the politics aren't relevant, but the (lack of) notability is. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
  • Comment I take issue with Friday's assumption that politics is not a factor in the motivation of deletes. Isomorphic's argument for delete included that fact the phrase "some American gun nut" appeared on an editor's private blog outside Wikipedia. This would appear to indicate national bias. R. fiend, also voting for delete, has insulted the quality or nature of Canadian political debate, by suggesting mockingly if the Progressive Bloggers article is deleted: "I'm sure political debate in Canada will grind to a standstill." Friday argues for delete by asserting "Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox." While this would seem to be a politically neutral statement, when it is remembered Canadian conservative blogger Mike Brock entry has been accepted, singling out Progressive Bloggers would seem to be politically biased. 198.53.129.218, a new user, perhaps unhinged, characterizes the politics of Progressive Bloggers as: "The Liberal Party is deemed socialist/fascist, the NDP is considered outright communist and the Greens are the same socialist/fascist mix ."--Simon.Pole 9 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
    • I didn't insult the quality or nature of Canadian political debate. I mocked Simon Pole's ridiculous assertion that the deletion of this article would harm the nature of Canadian political debate. Canadian political debate would have to be in a very sorry state indeed if this article were to affect it in any way at all. I have more faith in the Canadian political system than he does, it would appear. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
      • Comment Why would you assume that deletion of Wikipedia's Progressive Bloggers article would not harm politics in Canada? The USA has 300 million people, Canada 30 million. Such an entry might seem insignificant to you in your country, but in Canada, it makes a difference. In our country, many more people have the internet, many more people vote and are involved in politics and belong to political parties. Because of this, they turn to the internet for information about politics and to be involved in politics. Wikipedia is a part of that, as are the Progressive Bloggers. As stated above, blogs and groups of blogs, have a much greater role in Canadian politics than they may have in your country. Again, I'd like to point out I don't think it is appropriate for someone who is not Canadian to make decisions about what is appropriate to Canadian politics.--Simon.Pole 9 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
        • You're right. And I'm very curious to see what Paul Martin will say about this article in Parliament on Monday. I can't wait. Should be quite a speech. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
          • R. fiend please be advised that Parliament has risen for the summer and will not meet again until the fall. It should also be noted, in keeping with the importance of blogs in Canadian political life, that Paul Martin kept a high profile blog in the last election. However, R. fiend, you are quite right when you point out that questions arising from blogs are frequently asked in the Commons. For example here's one arising from postings on Warren Kinsella's blog, a prominent Canadian blogger as noted above.--Simon.Pole 9 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
  • comment As the actual owner and creator of the site, I just wanted to comment that I really have no position on this matter, that I didn't create the article and had no knowledge of it until a friend pointed out to me that the article exists. There were some inacuracies in the article that I have edited and fixed, however, I want to reassure those conspiracy minded that there is no orchestrated attempt to have the article approved. To the issue at hand I shall point out that there is a growing trend in the Canadian blogosphere, at least, for blogs to converge around blogging groups or "planets" (e.g. http://planet.gnome.org/) and that in Canada, the Blogging Tories and the Progressive Bloggers seem to be the major ones. However the community decides to reflect this trend is up to you, but I do ask that the community remain consistent. If the article is approved, then a Blogging Tories article should be allowed. Otherwise, no articles on blogging groups should be allowed. -waynechu
    • comment I agree completely, but Blogging Tories hasn't submitted an entry. I wonder how many of the deletists here would have been heard from if BT had been the one submitting a Wikipedia article? Dr.Dawg
  • Please note: there is a keep vote by a new user on the dicussion page that looks like it was entered yesterday.--Simon.Pole 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Demonstrating that some blogs have been relevant to Canadian politics doesn't help much. Some individuals are relevant to politics too; this doesn't mean everyone who is an individual is relevant. If someone wants to make an article on the Canadian Blogosphere, maybe some of the arguments here would help that. But, we must remember, such a thing needs to be verifiable by other sources, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. This article contains plenty of claims of importance, but I still see nothing verifiable. As it stands, this article is about one particular group, evidenced by one particular website. I could make a website called "Democratic Americans", and claim that my site is very important because of the large numbers of Americans who consider themselves Democratic. However such a claim would be spurious, and I would hope the Wikipedia community would see through it. It doesn't seem to me that most of the folks arguing to keep have read and understood Wikipedia:Verifiability. Friday 20:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Friday argues Progressive Bloggers should be deleted because it contains no relevent individuals. This untrue. The Progressive Bloggers includes the following individuals who have made substantial contributions to Canadian public life:
      • Matthew Good - Canadian recording artist with many hits and gold records.
      • Jason Cherniak - Chair of the Young Liberals of Canada Convention. Recent National Executive of the Young Liberals of Canada.
      • The "Buckets" blogger who was recognized in the national media as a primary source of information in the on-going Sponsorship Scandal. You can verify the revelance of the "Buckets" blogger to national politics in the following articles from the Mainstream Media: 1 CTV, 2 3 Toronto Star, 4 reprinted from the Halifax Herald. This would seem to indicate the "Buckets" blogger has national relevance.
      • Calgary Grit is recognized as influential in the Liberal Party of Canada. For example, Warren Kinsella, former advisor to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, refers to Calgary Grit (blogger Bart Ramson) as "my buddy" and "my pal." Praise from a man of Kinsella's stature would seem to indicate relevance.
      • The Dominion Daily Weblog as noted above, was quoted as a source during a debate in the Parliament of Canada. This would seem to be the highest level of relevance possible.
      • More to come, I just have to eat some dinner.--Simon.Pole 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Please Note: These individuals were not highlighted in the original entry because of concerns for their privacy. They have been listed here only to prevent the deletion of the entire Progressive Bloggers article.--Simon.Pole 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment No, I did not argue that it's deletion material because it contains no notable members. One of the points I've attempted to make before is that notability of a member does NOT automatically extend notability to your website. This is getting crazy. Further comments on your talk page. Friday 23:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment It has been established that blogs are more important in Canadian political life than they are elsewhere, to the extent that such politically notable individuals as the current Prime Minister use them. It has also been established that there are politically notable individuals in the Progressive Blogger membership. I believe, in the context of Canadian political life, this is enough to make Progressive Bloggers notable in and of itself. If a higher standard of proof is required, however, the Progressive Bloggers would appear to be politically notable enough to be recognized in the following sources:
        • The Toronto Star monitors Progressive Bloggers for political news 1,2.
        • CTV - Progressive Blogger membership of notable individuals significant enough to be remarked upon 1.
        • The Vive le Canada political organization run by federal NDP candidate Susan Thompson carries a prominent endorsement of Progressive Bloggers on the frontpage of its website, something it has extended to no other political organization, including Ms. Thompson's own party.
        • National Media "blogging expert" Jim Elve takes the Progressive Bloggers to represent a demonstrable segment of Canadian opinion in this article. A list of national media outlets for whom Mr. Elve has appeared as an expert is available in this post.
        • Progressive Bloggers are advertised on the website of federal NDP candidate Crystal Leblanc.
      • I should hope that these examples would show that Progressive Bloggers, in and of itself -- regardless of who belongs to it -- is a notable part of Canadian political life.--Simon.Pole 01:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for gawd's sake. This is getting completely fucking out of control. Votes should address only the following points:

  1. Is this verifiable?
  2. Is this notable?

No other criterion, including ideology, should be a factor on either side.

Now, speaking as a Canadian who has no personal connection to Progressive Bloggers and is therefore entirely objective about it, I can assure you that the answer to both of these questions is yes; Simon.Pole is correct in pointing out that the group has a significant role in Canadian political discussion (although admittedly trolling for sockpuppets in his own blog wasn't the smartest move in terms of demonstrating that.) I'd also support an article for Blogging Tories, for the same reason (even though my own views are much more closely aligned with ProgBlog.) When you get right down to it, however, the bottom line is: this is the Canadian equivalent, both in purpose and in influence, to Daily Kos, so if Daily Kos deserves an article, then so does this. Keep, and stop making this vote into a circus. Bearcat 02:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to Bearcat's sensible comments. Keep Luigizanasi 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's notable based on the testimony of Canadians above and because it represents more than one individual. I think it's especially important to listen to these voices because Wikipedia is constantly struggling to overcome it's inherent U.S. bias. mennonot 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Update The original article has been extensively edited since vfd --Simon.Pole 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep maclean25 04:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based not on the politics (I'm not going to state my political affiliations, but you'd be surprised), but on notability. Since the VfD, I'm sure more people have checked out the site, but it still only has an Alexa rank of ~2.6 million. A web site listing of a bunch of (mainly) non-notable bloggers isn't notable enough IMO. --Deathphoenix 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~~~~ 00:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but I'd like to see more in the article that bears out that this group of bloggers is, indeed, notable and influential. So far, I see little evidence of that, just some bold assertion. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The article itself and others have compared this site to Daily Kos. Alexa ranks Kos under 5000, a very different league traffic-wise. However, this article has changed quite a lot since the VfD, as the author/primary editor suggests. I see there's now an entire article on Canadian blogosphere, so maybe new information to support importance of groups like this is forthcoming. Maybe it would be worthy delaying the VfD to see what new information arises? Friday 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The "opposite number" of Progressive Bloggers the Blogging Tories has an Alexa ranking of 364,047. There is not much difference between the composition of the two communities, except that possibly the Blogging Tories are slightly older. The Alexa details show that from the previous 3 month period, the Blogging Tories traffic ranking increased 600,000 from 949,719 and its reach jumped 590%. Can similar Progressive Bloggers Alexa growth be assumed at this time and reason to postpone an VfD?--Simon.Pole 05:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Also, re: the Daily Kos traffic rankings. I don't think its fair to compare the traffic rankings of an American site to a Canadian site. The US has ten times the population of Canada. Compensating for the difference in population (i.e. dividing by 10) brings the Blogging Tories traffic ranking to 36,405 -- into the ballpark of sites like Kos. Again, I don't want to harp on the issue of inherent US bias in Wikipedia, but comparisons between US and Canadian traffic levels would seem to fall into this category.--Simon.Pole 06:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Other political communities included in Wikipedia actually have worse traffic rankings than the Prog Blogs "opposite number" the Blogging Tories when the pop. difference is compensated. MyDD has a traffic ranking of 54,331 (vs. the Blogging Tories compendsated 36,405). Samizdata, which is British, has a traffic ranking of 93,398. The UK is twice as populous as Canada. Dividing Blogging Tories Alexa ranking by 2 gives 182,024 which is in the neighbourhood of Samiizdata's stats.--Simon.Pole 06:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The website of the Vive le Canada organization has an Alexa ranking of 235,781. This is very close to the Blogging Tories of 364,047. I think it can be assumed that in the span of a month or two, the Progressive Bloggers would achieve what would be considered respectable Wikipedia Alexa rankings.--Simon.Pole 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scimitar + Bearcat, and to hell with the sockpuppetry and 99% of the comments above. See also Common sense. :) KissL 10:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't call me a dittohead, but I agree with Bearcat too. Already went into detail on the page's "talk" page. This entry is important to Canadians, and we may be surprised how much influence these two groups (Blogging Tories and the Progressive Bloggers) have in Canada's future.

Alexa is not a reliable barometer to judge a Canadian site (with a much smaller potential viewership) against an American one like Daily Kos. Oh, and further - is it even a reliable barometer, period? Even their own page admits 1) they collect data from those with Alexa's toolbar; 2) they only collect from IE users and Windows users; 3) this data can be affected by other means (it closes on https pages, it uses automated procedures and may close on real "sites" - read for yourself at http://pages.alexa.com/prod_serv/traffic_learn_more.html). As far as 1 and 2, if I were a progressive with "liberal" values, doncha think I might be more likely to 1) avoid all spyware collecting personal data on moi, such as Alexa's toolbar ... and 2) utilize non-MS software and material like Firefox, Netscape, Opera, etc - which would preclude me from being counted by Alexa? And one more time, whether it's "notable" IS tied to what country and culture it's coming from... That's why the RFD showed up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. This group is not notable by "American" standards (EG everyone keeps comparing it to Daily Kos, and act as if political blogs are a dime a dozen... yes, in the US!), but it is notable by Canadian standards. Are we to think that only American standards rule the day? 67.10.131.229 11:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not here to publicise blogs.--nixie 02:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment After a week there are 16 keeps and 15 deletes. How long does this go on? and who decides? --Fornssler 19:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Seven days is the rule. the Ayes have it. Dr.Dawg 17:20 DST, 14 July 2005
    • Well...actually, there are only about 5 "keep" votes from established Wikipedians (i.e., editors who have actually done something other than vote on this VFD. And more to the point, VfD (and Wikipedia) isn't about voting; it's about consensus. If I were making the call (and I could, but I prefer not to undertake that duty), I wouldn't think that 16-5 is close enough to a consensus to delete the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article was definately written prematurely. But I expect PB's will play a role in the next elecition and as such, it seems silly in my mind to be eager to delete the article so quickly. If after the next election the status of PB's has not been elevated deletion should be considered.
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.