Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein Wisdom (blog) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protein Wisdom (blog) (2nd nomination)

Protein Wisdom (blog) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable political blog (the 68th most popular political blog on the internet!). SkipSmith 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add the link to the previous nomination. SkipSmith 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it non notable exactly? 'let's hope it doesn't get recreated' isn't a reason for deletion. Nick mallory 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Protein Wisdom is the subject of several independent media sources including Fox News [1], the American Spectator [2] and is cited by the The Washington Post [3]. Some of these stories relate to an incident all mention of which the nominator removed from the Protein Wisdom wikipedia article shortly before nominating it for deletion. That story is carried by the Arizona Daily Star [4] and the Rocky Mountain News [5]. Furthermore all the arguments which apply to the ongoing Steve Gilliard AfD [6] apply here. A large number of posters on that AfD seem to think that numerous mentions acoss the blogsphere and participation in the Daily Kos assure notability for Gilliard so equally numerous mentions across the blogsphere and participation in Pajamas Media should not doom Protein Wisdom. If Protein Wisdom is the 68th most popular political blog then it might be noted that Gilliard's blog ranks 662,416 on Alexa. [7] The same rules should apply across the political spectrum. Nick mallory 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory
  • Keep 68th is good enough. Perhaps we need some kind of standard there, but I think that anything under 100 would be a notable number, corresponding approximate to the number of nation &major regional newspapers. DGG 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The 'Truth Laid Bear' ecosystem lists the top 100 sites by links and is a good barometer of importance. In this internet age the Wikipedia standards for blogs are unrealistic and are bound to change in the future. Even by current standards though there's no rationale for the deletion of this one. Nick mallory 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure comparing the 68th ranked blog to the 68th ranked newspaper is a valid comparison. The 68th ranked newspaper in the US is the Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), with a daily circulation of 189,000 [8]. Proteinwisdom.com is currently getting 7251 visits per day [9]. SkipSmith 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's sufficiently notable, shouldn't be deleted due to editors disagreeing with the content of the blog --Javit 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith Lurker 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. The news mentions tend to be along the lines of round-ups of what various blogs are saying, apart from one incident which seems to be something briefly mentioned in the news. And the "68th most popular" tag is meaningless. There are a lot of sites dedicated to ranking blogs, and this seems to be a political site with ideological similarities to the blog in question. It'd be like keeping a progressiv eblog because alternet ranked it highly. Lurker 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Changing vote to keep in light of recent edits Lurker 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep keep keep 1) the nominator has suggested no wikipedia policy violations. "I think this is non-notable" or citing arbitrary nubmers is not a violation of wikipedia policy. 2)I assume good faith, but that begins to falter to bad faith when a nominator changes an article before nominating it for deletion, making the motives questionable. I have to agree with the other keep votes here, but stating that it satisfies WP:WEB should be enough to keep it on here. Barsportsunlimited 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification of Nomination. In my opinion, this article does not satisfy WP:WEB, which states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." In the provided citations, this blog is only mentioned in passing in the context of a disagreement between the blog's owner and someone else --- the content of the blog is irrelevant in these cites, aside from a single quote from Goldstein in the Washington Post. This doesn't appear to rise to the level of "multiple non-trivial published works."
As far as the removed content, it was: Protein Wisdom suffered a DoS attack that was attributed to University of Arizona adjunct professor Deborah Frisch. Ms. Frish was also alleged to have engaged in blogstalking of Mr. Goldstein and his family. This content appeared to me to have little to do with the subject of the blog itself. Further, it seemed to bump up against WP:LIBEL, which is why I removed it.
Well it's now sourced to two newspapers and she's clearly admitted to doing it so I hope you don't feel the need to remove that information again. The political content of Protein Wisdom was exactly the reason why Ms Frish was commenting so fiercely upon it. She's a left wing activist and was strongly opposed to the opinions expressed on Protein Wisdom. "“I enjoy writing things that inflame, mock and infuriate the right” she says in an E mail interview with 'insidehighered' about the controversy which led to her resignation[10]. Let's be honest, no amount of sources are going to satisfy some editors as to the notability or otherwise of this blog. They'll always be dismissed as trivial or whatever. I leave it to the good sense of the closing admin to judge this on Wikipedia's guidelines and precedent. Nick mallory 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the information because an argument between the blog's owner and someone else is not really relevant to an article about the blog itself. The incident itself might be notable and deserve an entry, but the blog does not. An analogy: if the owner of a deli gets into a fist fight with a customer, the incident might make it into the paper, but they wouldn't write a feature article about the deli. The accusation about the DOS attack might also violate WP:LIBEL. SkipSmith 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the same rules should apply across the political spectrum (which in my opinion would mean more article deletions). No bad faith was intended, and I apologize for being unclear in my nomination earlier. SkipSmith 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG--JForget 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm not sure if this will change anyone's mind, but I just went to 'The Truth Laid Bear' and this blog is currently ranked 95th, not 68th. [11] SkipSmith 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It was ranked 68th last year, so the article is factually correct. Are you arguing that any left wing blog ranked lower than 95 should also be deleted SkipSmith? I await your AfD nominations for them with baited breath. Nick mallory 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think any article on a blog that fails WP:WEB should be deleted, regardless of political leaning. I just happened to run across this one because I was editing Deborah Frisch and this blog was referenced on the talk page. And let's adhere to WP:CIVIL, please. SkipSmith 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Another note on this blog's ranking --- it was quite inflated last year by an influx of visitors in July 2006 that were attracted by the Deborah Frisch incident. Before and after that incident blog traffic is much lower, as Alexa shows [12]. 95th is probably about the right over time ranking. SkipSmith 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So the 7 sources regarding Protein Wisdom mentioned above and in the article presumably mean you're changing your opinion to a keep now? Nick mallory 06:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Please re-read my clarification of the nomination. This article does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB, which you might want to take a look at. And while you're reviewing Wikipedia policy, you might also want to take a look at WP:CIVIL. SkipSmith 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Article does meet WP:WEB under criterion #1: content has been subject of multiple independent reports, all over the conservative/libertarian blogosphere.
  2. In any event, WP:WEB is only a guideline, and PW is an important member of the second tier of conservative/libertarian blogs.
  3. This article is not just about the blog. Jeff Goldstein redirects there, which is why PW article has a short bio of him.
  4. This article is not just about the blog. Wikipedia now covers the Frisch-Goldstein case there.
I hope my edits alleviate some or all of SkipSmith's concerns about how Wikipedia treats Ms. Frisch. Cheers, CWC 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, my concern was with notability rather than the well-being of the players involved, but believe it or not, I think this latest revision addresses most of my concerns. I think one could make a case that this blog is notable in the context of the dispute between the owner and Frisch, so incorporating all that information in one place makes sense. I'm leaning towards keep now. Please check my edits and comment on the talk page and let me know what you all think. SkipSmith 17:13, 6 June 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.