Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Progressive Independent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You get that goon off our back and we might have time. That goon came and slapped an AfD on our entry the minute we made it and made us waste a bunch of time addressing it.

PI was formed by ex-members of DU. There is no acceptable reason that shouldn't be mentioned. And no acceptable reason for that person to start a frivolous childish war over that comment.

The following was refactored from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Independent for readability purposes. Its contributors can be viewed at that page's history. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your afd is a total joke so we thought we'd give you one also. How dare you try to intimidate people here!
Not surprisingly Democratic Underground can't tolerate mention of alternatives to it fascist forum. Wikipedia is an open source for information. DU can prevent discussion of alternatives on their forum but not here. PI is notable enough to be listed as a prominent link on many Liberal and Progressive sites and has earned respect in the Progressive community.
Now kindly get off your imaginary soapbox. I'm afraid you'll break your neck.
Your entire interaction has been rude. What's your problem? Zoraida 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I have no association with DU or any other "progressive" movement as you might derive from my username. Thank you.--RWR8189 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems fairly non-notable right now and doesn't meet WP:WEB. That being said, I'm a bit suspicious of this nom based on what I've seen on the various talk pages, etc. Page has only existed a few hours and RWR8189's first attempt to contact the creator was after the AfD in response to Zoraida's vandalism of the AfD notice. Piss poor example of WP:CIVIL behavior and AfD process is what is keeping me from opining Delete.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


No it isn't. I simply didn't bother to log in. The political articles are so hag-ridden with ideology that I no longer like to spend my time trying to de-POV them. In this case I decided to add my comment because, while not a member of that community, I find it an important and near-unique resource. I'll repeat my thesis: 'big' and 'important' are not interchangable terms except among the hard-of-thinking.
I would also suggest that you seem to be working quite hard to get rid of this article, and I wonder what your motivation is. What are yourpolitics? Katzenjammer 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My politics are conservative, and one should be able to derive that from my username. However if you care to look through my edit history you will find that I have also worked to keep non-notable conservative forums off of Wikipedia as well. I had never heard of this forum until it was repeatedly added into an article that I frequently watch, and this article was subsequently created.--RWR8189 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we have something significant here: you believe that your username somehow reveals your politics. I'd suggest that your belief and your opposition to the PI article come from the same place: a partisan and parochial view of what's important. Katzenjammer 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You say that if I check your edit history I'd find that you've worked to kill off articles on 'non-notable' conservative fora too. Perhaps you could provide some pointers? Because I did check, and couldn't find anything that would support your claim. Katzenjammer 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Here in the talk section of the Free Republic article is a discussion based on my proposed exclusion of some non-notable conservative forums from mention in the article. If anyone ever created an article about them, I would slap an AfD on it as fast I did this one, and for the same reasons.--RWR8189 13:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you offer the lowest price in town ...for the products you don't have in stock. The reality is that the only articles you've tried to have deleted about political sites are about non-GOP ones (language fixed to make my point more clear--talk is cheap, so I don't count self-serving claims about how balanced you'd be if ever the occasion arose. The fact is that you have only tried to get articles deleted about non-GOP sites). I believe that's significant here. Katzenjammer 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I just showed you two non-notable conservative sites whose mention I opposed in another article. My only concern in this issue is staying consistent with Wikipedia:Notability (websites), not partisan politics, and it seems a consensus is forming that agrees with me.--RWR8189 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Doc, if you're an English professor, presumably you teach your students to avoid rhetoric fallacies -- such as appeal to authority or strawman arguments. The former I think is obvious, but here's a hint for the latter: no Wikipedia notability standard I'm aware of refers to anything like "level of discourse" or other needlessly vague subjective standard.--Calton | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton, yes I do teach those in the appropriate course, along with more than 40 other specific fallacies, so here's a hint right back: I did not claim that my comments were true because of my professional expertise. I implied (claimed) that my professional expertise offered me some insight into the reasons for deletion (i.e.- notability). And now that you mention it, straw man rebuts the point that the discussant wishes was made rather than the actual point. Iverson 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no such 'notablity standard'. It's a mere guideline, and clearly states that its very existence is problematic. If appeals to authority --and I'd suggest you take another look if you think that is what Clark Iverson is doing-- are bad, what are appeals to factitious authority?Katzenjammer 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe the opposition to the PI entry has a political rather than a principled basis. I note, for example, the fact that RWR8189 is a Reaganite who has only objected to non-GOP political sites, and Calton's objection ("American Left's ... Circular Firing Squad...elsewhere") is couched in terms frequently applied to progressive posters at DU. I would also point out that neither the (trivial) Conservative Underground entry nor the entry for the People For Change forum are being similarly attacked despite the fact that neither community would meet the 'notability' guidelines (and no, I don't think they should be attacked; they, like PI, are signficant in their own ways). Katzenjammer 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Are you seriously alleging that each and every one of the sixteen editors who have found this article to be non-notable have political biases? Or that people who hold to a particular political stance are incapable of disinterested application of Wikipedia's rules? Happily, we presume no such thing here as a general rule. RGTraynor 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please don't try to wrong-foot me, or force a strawman on me. Of the three (now four) voters where I have some political information, their votes are consistent with the idea that opposition is politically motivated. Katzenjammer 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware being a "Reaganite" precluded one from participating in Wikipedia. I have already pointed to objections I had with the inclusion of non-notable conservative forums in other places, but you seem intent on ignoring them, while also ignoring Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines. I also just became aware from your comment of Conservative Underground and its AfD, and if it was still open I would have voted to delete as well.--RWR8189 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
'Your actions speak so loudly that I can't hear a word you say' Katzenjammer 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to be interested in rational discussion, so I will let you be.--RWR8189 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no political affiliations, and the only bias I have with political parties is that they should all be disbanned. That being said, my delete was due to lack of Notability, if that changes so does my opinion.--Tollwutig 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, this is the PI AfD discussion, not any such discussion for any other article. If you wish to speak on any other AfD (or file one yourself) you are of course welcome -- as long as it is in the proper place -- but we'd prefer to rule on this article's non-merits. RGTraynor 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Comment: If you are unable or unwilling to see the connection or understand the point of my comment than you may have an agenda as the point was clearly articulated and easy to see. And of course it relates directly to the PI AfD discussion. The analogy was a simple one. Your comment seems rather disingenuous.Chlamor 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (chlamor)

  • Hm. Let's make this simpler then. We don't do analogies on AfD. Each nomination is (theoretically) viewed on its own merits, without reference to any other. That being said, you may continue to infer that no one could possibly disagree with you without having some hidden and presumably sinister agenda, but that mindset is a better fit on the partisan shows of talk radio -- in which demonizing those who disagree with you has long since been not only tolerated but expected -- than it is here. Wikipedia still isn't a soapbox. RGTraynor

Chlamor 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Your comments are snide and inaccurate. The merit of "notability" is what has been the point of contention here and to point out that by using comparisons as to what is proven to be "notable" is perfectly valid. One does not live in a vaccuum.Chlamor 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (chlamor)


  • Comment this is a direct comment from User:Atlant asking people to vote keep on that political forum. According to Wikipedia policy (See Here) it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated. It's this kind of meat puppetry and blatent disrespect for Wikipedia policy that really angers me.
The PI article on WIkipedia will only be deleted if the vote for deletion currently being held goes against it.
So far, though, only three people (including me) have posted a "keep"; why doesn't everyone here simply vote "Keep" and overwhelm the wingers?
Atlant [1].--Jersey Devil 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, good old ballot-stuffing... Cancels out any reservations I had about how this nomination went down. A note to any PI folks that come here, please read WP:WEB. Your energy would be better spent meeting those criteria so nobody has a solid reason to AfD the article, or vote delete.--Isotope23 03:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am a casual user of wikipedia. This is the first time I have been inclined to comment on something. Being both a member of PI and a big fan of wikipedia, I can't help but be dissapointed in how some wikipedia members have handled some of my peers from PI. I'd like to refer you to a Wikipedia guidline, Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers[2]. Being a member of PI I can say that the majority of the people there are reasonable and friendly. The fact that they are new to making an entry, and unfamiliar with many of the nuances of wikipedia entry does not excuse the almost immediate attack to these newcomers. I would suggest removing the deletion tag and marking the article for cleanup (which PI is already doing).--Kralizec 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I see that I have been accused of being a DU member on your board [3]. You know, there are more people than one that use the "Jersey Devil" screen name on the internet. I've been on Wikipedia for more than a year to prove myself in not being some kind of a sockpuppet for another board. The fact is that your website has an alexa ranking of over 2.5 million [4]. According to WP:WEB in order for a website to be notable it must meet one of the three:
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This criterion excludes:

  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
    • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
  • The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
  • The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

There is no evidence of any of these critera being met and therefore your site is not notable no matter how much you think it is notable. We've dealt with thousands of people trying to plug their websites on Wikipedia, this isn't anything new that we haven't dealt with before. Your posters are acting as if this is some "big conspiracy" by some other board to try an "silence" you and are now trying to play victims when clear facts showing meatpuppetry emerge.--Jersey Devil 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, to fellow Wikipedia regulars, be ready to put a speedy deletion tag on this for recreation of deleted material because User:Atlant on that board says that immediately after this page is deleted it is going to be recreated. [5]--Jersey Devil 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, what is this? You have shown your bias, Jersey Devil. I can only hope there are reasonable people who will not heed your call. I am a member of PI but in no way do a few members such as Atlant or whoever else represent the views as a whole. You are plainly guilty of pigeonholing. [6] At the best, you have failed at even representing the effort being made at PI to make this entry up-to-standard, depite the members' discourse at the complexity and resistance of making a good-willed entry here. I also remind "regular Wikipedians" to note that User:Jersey Devil seems to follow some guidelines while ignoring others. I would like again to refresh "fellow Wikipedia regulars" memories. Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers. [[7]] Perhaps you haven't read it in a long time, being so regular as you are. In this guideline it states, We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value. It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard".

This article was attacked almost immediately by User:RWR8189, who has shown a blatent disregard himself of several guidlines, including the above newcomer's guideline and WP:Civil. Until I cited the newcomers guide, the main complainers had given little or no recommendations before deciding to slap a delete tag on it. Once again, the newcomers guide says, If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*. If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing. A mere reading of this AfD shows the opposite of this behavior. Indeed, you the main critics of this entry have taken the role of a "superior" rather than a "peer".

I can go on citing the guide, but my point is made. I am making this appeal to those "Wikipedia regulars," who, upon reading the re-written entry, will see the attacks on the entry are unwarranted.--Kralizec 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Response I'm not sure what guidelines you are accusing me of breaking. I am mostly interested in the integrity of Wikipedia, and the removal of non-notable articles, as they attack this integrity and credibility.
My first contact with Zoraida was a welcome note on his/her talk page. I did not believe that PI was notable enough be included in the Democratic Underground article, so obviously it would be consistent to nominate the article for AfD when I became aware of its existance. Zoraida responded by making several bad faith edits and acting in a very uncivil manner.
My problem with this article doesn't center around the way it is written, it is a problem of notability.
The fact still remains that this article is not consistent with the notability guidelines that have been cited several times, and it seems a consensus has emerged around this point, and I anticipate this discussion is near its conclusion.--RWR8189 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Chlamor 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)An introductory comment from Tinoire the Admin at PI who registered to post it herself but could not due to security software problems on her computer:

Comment My apologies for disturbing this fascinating discussion. I'm the Admin at Progressive Independent and I've been genuinely saddened to see some of the comments on this page as well as the passionate intensity with which certain voters are trying to get PI's entry deleted without even according the courtesy of a rewrite. I think it's been made quite clear on our website that we agree the article is weak and some of us have been working very hard to bring it up to "notability/NPOV" standards with the understanding that we have 4(?) days to do so. Despite my perception that there's something not quite right about the way our entry was jumped upon and immediately tagged for deletion because someone took offense to a comment the original editor had made on DU's page that merely mentioned that, in addition to People for Change, another website was also launched (PI) so that she could link the entry (10:06, 13 April 2006 65.172.237.186 (→the last paragraph under Criticism). Her entry was rudely deleted and redeleted and again redeleted by RWR8189 before he decided to go to the Progressive Independent Page and request that be deleted. If mention of People for Change is deemed noteworthy, I don't understand the vehemence with which mention of PI, which outperforms People for Change is deemed otherwise and I've found the neutrality of certain arguments questionable.

I ask you, is this how things are normally done at Wikipedia when new people show up? Were all of you put through this wringer? Or were you given time to absorb constructive criticism and modify your entries?

The writers at PI are responsible for much of the initial research on important issues like PNAC that most people had never heard of 4 years ago. The work done in our Election Fraud Forum by published authors and mathematicians (who fight the statisticians) has been well received as has, for example, one user's compilation on Hurricane Katrina.

In a couple of days we hope to have an entry notable enough to stand at Wiki so that others can build upon it, though one of our members did note that Wiki takes great pains to point out that these are not rules or even official http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_criteria

Jersey Devil, if you're not the same Jersey Devil from DU, I apologize for my assumption.

And yes of course, IF my vote could be counted, it would be, from a neutral point of view- "Keep" with editing. Much editing. Chlamor 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Chlamor

  • Comment: A couple observations. First off, Don't Bite The Newcomers has been waved in our faces a few times in this discussion, but equally incumbent on said newcomers is not to bite the veterans. Instead, we've been lashed by the self-same newcomers with insults and the presumption that any AfD editor who can be identified as (or, as likely, accused of) holding political views opposed to their own must be acting out of bad faith.
Secondly, some of you seem to be operating out of the presumption that what we mean when we say "notable" is that an article is well-written, and to a NPOV standard. This is incorrect. We routinely vote in AfD discussions to delete very well-written and sourced articles that nevertheless are about non-notable subjects. This is one. Your forum is tiny, with relatively few hits and registered users. It has won no awards, been featured in no media sources, is frequented by no known major political figures, and has not been distributed by a major media content provider. The best article rewriting of which you are capable will not suffice until and unless your website gains the public prominence that it so far lacks. Improving the former will not sway us to any meaningful degree. Improving the latter would. RGTraynor 08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason that "Don't Bite The Newcomers" has been cited (not "waved in (your) faces") is that there is blatant cause, and as the more experienced contributor, you are not free to ignore it on the rationale that someone else did. Every parent knows what 's wrong with that line of discussion.

Everything is embedded in a context, so yes, everyone "does" analogies. As there is an established precedent for including a similar website on Wikipedia (People for Change), a truly neutral and analytical criticism from discussants here would include clarifying the meaningful difference between the successful entry and this one. It would not include exaggerated umbrage or organized attempts to delete revisions without the benefit of even reading them. Thank you. Iverson 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"Question": Can the entry be edited while the AfD is being discussed?Chlamor 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be edited. As the deletion notice on the article states, "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." JamesMLane t c 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Quite an amazing maze of rules and processes here that are obviously vague, fungible and used in an extremely uneven manner. Wiki readers have NO idea how subjectively decisions are made. Anyone can slap a PfD on any article/submission and from that point forward the arbiters and watchdogs can influence/decide the ultimate outcome based on these fungible parameters.Chlamor 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Every one of those policies and guidelines was developed through the collaborative efforts of volunteers -- and every one of them is still being developed. You can suggest a rewording that would make the page clearer in expressing the substance. You can suggest a significant change in the substance. You can urge that the policy or guideline be abolished. Just go to the relevant "Talk" page and add your comment. JamesMLane t c 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment : This is from your talk page : "Hey -- please don't remove the AfD notice from a page while the debate is going on. (It's clear that the AfD debate on Democratic Underground will end up dismissing the nomination for being a pointless retaliation, but removing the tag is still disrupting Wikipedia process.) Mangojuice 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)" .. Hmmm ... So you were trying to delete the Democratic Underground entry (I wonder why), unable to do that you are turning towards smaller prey. 69.161.144.78

No, I removed an AfD tag on the Democratic Underground article because I considered that tag an act of vandalism and a bad faith edit, I was unaware of the procedure that would have led to a "speedy keep."--RWR8189 06:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment regarding this please confer with Wikipedia policy Sockpuppet#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 08:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What about stalking ? so you are assuming that I am that Amfortas ? why don't you google Amfortas and see how many used that nickname (Its a common name , a character from one of Wagners Operas)Amfortas 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see User:Atlant with an account there to, apparantly as an Admin, (who was also soliciting votes as mentioned above at PI and on his user talk page when I confronted him about this he seemed to acknowledge that that was him). It is obvious that it is another break away forum of Democratic Underground with a few of the same posters as this PI forum. So I don't see what you are trying to deny.--Jersey Devil 09:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This is incorrect. User Atlant is not an administrator at PI and in fact joined their membership as recently as 4-14-06 with currently less than 10 submissions. This information is available without membership. RSamuelson
  • Comment : Did I deny anything here ? I could have easily registered with another nickname , or could have easily not mentioned that I'm 69.161.144.78... But I'm puzzled by your stalking activity , do you normally search users nicknames(something that can be easily forged ) and look for stuff to harm them ... I came here with good intentions, but you seem to be on a crusade of deleting some entry you don't like . I'm new here (as an account holder , I did many anonymous Edits in the past), so I'm not familiar with all the guidlines yet... you want to hold that against me to win your crusade go ahead. Amfortas 09:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment in response to Stifle-- the presence of new people here arguing for or against this article's deletion has absolutely no objective bearing on whether or not it should be deleted. For the record, I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia discussion pages, and also have edited several articles. I've also been a member at DU, PI and several other political discussion fora, and I can attest to the petty grudges that emanate from them. I suggest that this entire debate regarding deletion stems from such grudges and is politically-motivated. I'd recommend that the warring factions here somehow negotiate a truce and send their "troops" back to their respective fora. I think the article should be allowed to stand provided it is edited to reflect NPOV policy (which hopefully, will reduce page vandalism if the warring parties can come to an agreement). This whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot. --Nicky Scarfo 13:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Administrators To support my thesis (upthread) that the AfD nom and 'delete' votes are politically motivated, not a high-minded concern for 'notability' as claimed, I'll point out that none of the people voting 'delete' here seem to have found any of these articles, 'hidden' in plain sight:

  • 6park (Chinese)
  • Adequacy.org (an admitted trollish site, now shut down)
  • The Adrenaline Vault (not obviously "notable")
  • Astrogate (trivial entry, site not obviously "notable")
  • Avsig (trivial entry, site not obviously "notable")
  • CampusNetwork (site now shut down)
  • Conforums (trivial entry)
  • Cyberscore (trivial entry, site now shut down)
  • DelphiBBS (Chinese)
  • Ecunet (trivial entry, site not obviously "notable")
  • FlyerTalk (trivial entry, site not obviously "notable")
  • ForumPlanet (trivial entry with puff-piece tone, site not obviously "notable")
  • Futaba Channel (Japanese)
  • FutisForum (trivial entry, site not obviously "notable")
  • GameDev (trivial, self-promotional in tone)
  • General Mayhem (not obviously "notable")
  • HK Golden Forum (Chinese, Hong Kong local, not obviously "notable" even in context)
  • HKEPC (trivial, not obviously "notable")
  • Half-Life Fallout (trivial, self-promotional tone, not obviously "notable")
  • Independent Gay Forum (not obviously "notable")
  • InvisionFree (reads like a press release)
  • The King's Tavern (site no longer exists)
  • LUSENET (trivial entry, defunct site)
  • Megatokyo (not obviously "notable")
  • MiceChat (not obviously "notable")
  • Miniforum.org (Chinese, Hong Kong local)

Note that this list is so short only because I stopped halfway through Category:Internet_forums.

I'll also point out that after I impeached the article on Conservative Underground, it was given a second nom for deletion. However, only the nominator and one other of the anti-PI forces here (neither of whom is RWR8189) have expressed their concern about 'notability' in connection with that article. That's another trout in this milk. Katzenjammer 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It is generally held that AfDed articles must stand on thier own merits, and not by comparisons. If you find non-notable websites you are free to put the article up for deletion, and it will survive on its own accord.
Also a rewrite of the article in question is not going to make it's subject matter any more notible.--Tollwutig 16:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comment is an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is the bad-faith political nature of this nom and its support. Katzenjammer 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually your listing of other possible non-notable websites was an attempt to distract from the discussion. As I have stated before I have no political agenda, I hate Republicans and Democrats equally. Notability is the issue here, the site just isn't that notable. --Tollwutig 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think you missed Katzenjammer's point. He referred the other sites not to give more credit or "value" to PI, but to expose to others that this article is, for whatever reason, being focused on , by some, for deletion much more than other articles. I thought it proper to put Katzenjammer's comment into context. It was a reference to hypocrisy, not a comparison of quality or notability. --Kralizec 16:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Pull the other one, Tollwutig, it's got bells on. Katzenjammer 16:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Not pulling anything, and good Pratchett reference. Note my AfD on CU. Non-notables should be deleted. Unfortuately Political debates on the internet are only superceded in flame wars by Religious debates. Doesn't matter what your point is Katzenjammer AfDs stand on thier own not on the merits of comparison. --Tollwutig 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Post hoc non propter hoc. He and I got that response from the same place: it's a standard response in Britain to someone trying it on. On the other hand, I got this reference to precedent from the Wiki 'Don't Disrupt' guideline: If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do state your case on AfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples. Would you now like to try finding some support for your 'everything is decided in a vacuum' claim?  :-) (And, since you know Pterry's work, I presume you'll recognize the truth of this: 'notable' is not the same as 'important') Katzenjammer 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, apropos your CU action, I think the most economical explanation is the same as for the others: 'Embarrassed Attempt To CYA' :-) Katzenjammer 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just attacking me. Neither of the Articles are on notable websites. Thus the vote is the same for both.--Tollwutig 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that you think I'm attacking you, because I'm not. I'm interpreting your (and others') behavior. That my interpretation is unfavorable is a function of that behavior. To the extent that I have any feeling about you as a person at all, it's mildly positive (you seem to be a fan of Pterry's writing). Katzenjammer 19:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's cool. My main thing is currently PI doesn't seem all that notable. It isn't getting much traffic is a small forum with less than 1k users, and isn't being used by any notable Political Figures. If any of the above were to change, and the site becomes notable then by all means put the article back. (Oh and the only pratchett novel i don't have is Where's My Cow)--Tollwutig
  • Comment: This article is a source of heated debate. I believe that all of us, not just some of us, are being asked to keep cool heads.

Precedent has meaning. No one advocating deletion has addressed this. We understand how to proceed in the future based on what we've learned from history. I am asking a deletion advocate to kindly address the question of precedent without condescension or other personal elements. Thank you. Iverson 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I am the chairman of one of the most active Democratic Clubs that can be found and I and members of my organization are proud of the excellent work that Progressive Independent is doing. The people who run Progressive Independent encourage all progressives to post there and avoid censorship. There are some larger supposedly Democratic groups/forums that are run by people who delete postings that more conservative Democrats, such as those in the DLC or AIPAC, consider objectionable to their goals of getting Hillary or someone more conservative into the White House. In those same supposedly Democratic groups Democratic leaders who are too liberal are often banned or "tombstoned" as everyone calls it. Among those under attack in those supposedly Democratic groups are posters who support truly progressive candidates, such as Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters or Cynthia McKinney (the most progressive of the Democratic leaders). It is not surprising that conservatives from those groups that attack progressives would try to have an entry about a fair and above-board organization, like Progressive Independent, deleted. If Wikpedia caves in to the right wing Democrats and Hillary backers and deletes the PI listing, then it will be taking a strong political position against progressive Democrats. Progressive Independent is an excellent site that allows its posters to speak about issues that concern them. The atmosphere at PI is generally pleasant and uplifting. Those who post there, respect the right of other posters to be treated with dignity. It is a safe haven for those who want to discuss Democratic and progressive issues without having to worry about attacks from conservative Democrats. PI is the kind of experience that progressives looking for an education and enjoyable time look rush towards. If progressives find the site through Wikpedia, they will be grateful to Wikpedia. How about standing on the side of openness and fairness and allowing the PI entry to stand. PI has not asked you to delete listings for conservative Democratic groups.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick Henry (talk • contribs) .

Note: The above is Patrick Henry's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This heavy focus on the alleged motivation for the AfD is misguided. The motivation is irrelevant. The implication of this rationale for "keep" is that, if a nonpolitical Wikipedian doing routine new-article patrol came upon this one, judged PI to be nonnotable, and listed the article for deletion, then it should be deleted; but if, five minutes before the new-article patroller got there, a conservative listed the article for deletion because of his or her animosity toward the left, then the article must be kept. That's not the way it works. If the site is deemed notable, the article should stay, even if the AfD listing was made in good faith by someone who agreed with PI's politics but considered it nonnotable. On the other hand, if there's a consensus that the site is nonnotable, then the article should go, even if the deletion brings pleasure to a vindictive and politically motivated nominator. (I'm not addressing whether that's an accurate description of RWR8189, because it doesn't matter.) JamesMLane t c 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How often are you, as an attorney, ready to accept pious claims of disinterested motivation at face value? My guess would be in the range 'seldom' to 'are you joking?'. If motivation is irrelevant here, then Wiki has no claim to status as an encyclopedia, because its articles are at risk of being purged (or kept) merely on the say-so of people with an ideological agenda. The analog would be the courts being forced to accept even the most transparently self-interested and incredible claims by the powerful as evidence, as is common in places where "the rule of law" is a bad joke. Katzenjammer 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, Mr. Lane, that all sounds good in the realm of pure reason, but it's a post-Kantian world, baby. Problem is that no consensus is going to be reached by two warring political factions. Even if a decision is made on a majority or plurality of users, then that decision may very well reflect the political motivations of the majority/plurality of those making the decision. Point is that an objective, non-politically motivated decision on this article is not possible because the well was poisoned from the start and only got worse as the discussion continued. A vindictive right-winger made the initial RfD, then a flood of PI members came in to challenge it, then some disgrunted DUers joined in the fray to support deletion, in turn encouraging more PI members to come out. This is such a shitstorm that whatever decision is made will be politically-motivated, all started by the original RfD, which was politically-motivated. So yes, the political motivations of those requesting deletion is highly relevant as it has made any objective discussion of the matter impossible by poisoning the well at the beginning.--Nicky Scarfo 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Your argument that "no consensus is going to be reached by two warring political factions" seems to assume that the AfD can't be resolved unless warring political factions reach agreement on the substance of their disputes (Iraq, fiscal policy, or whatever). In fact, however, the AfD notice has drawn responses from many Wikipedians who aren't part of a faction, or who, if they are, aren't carrying the war into this venue. (You might also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#There's no such thing as objectivity.) As for the influx of politically motivated participants, the deletion guidelines authorize the admin who closes the AfD to disregard such comments. This is not an "election" that PI, DU, or anyone else can try to pack by recruiting non-Wikipedians to show up and "vote". Therefore, I continue to believe that the alleged motivation for the nomination is irrelevant. (I admit, though, that Wikipedia editors and admins are only human, and their AfD decisions may be influenced by their distaste for the tactics of one side or the other.) JamesMLane t c 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
On what basis do you accuse my RfD to be "vindictive" or "politically motivated?" I have discouraged the mention of non-notable political forums wherever I encounter them on Wikipedia, whether they are from the left or the right. Your accusation is without merit, I have made no personal attacks against other editors during my time at Wikipedia, and I expect the same level of discourse from others.--RWR8189 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)"Comment" I posed this question upstream: :Can the entry be edited while the AfD is being discussed?

And was offered this answer: Yes, it can be edited. As the deletion notice on the article states, "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress."

Probably unbeknownst to the respondant the answer is not the case for this (PI's) entry due to the initial warring that took place. After the AfD was put on PI's entry there was a retaliatory AfD put on DU and then RWR8189 then took the liberty of editing DU's page and removing the AfD so the PfD was then removed from PI's entry by Zoraida. An Admin came, put both AfDs back on to "respect the process" and locked both articles from editting. DU's AfD and edit lock were summarily removed and Zoraida accused of "vandalism". RWR8189 was merely asked to "please not remove those again" and PI's page locked.

Now this is all water under the bridge, apologies for tired metaphor, but is it still the case that PI's entry is locked and cannot be edited?

To my understanding, with an AfD, (which I would like to see overturned if at all possible) we should still be able to edit the page while the AfD is being discussed during the 5 day discussion period. We're unable to do so and have a substantial edit we'd like to submit so interested parties can expand and comment for the next 3 days before a final decision is made. If you would like to view what we want to submit, I'd be happy to send it to you or provide a link where you can read it.

As a point of material fact Atlant is NOT an Admin at PI and only just joined the other day.

Let us also recognize that age and wisdom do not necessarily correlate so no matter the number of years one spouts dogmatic ideology that ideology will never turn into wisdom.

And of course we all know The Meatpuppets were one of the best punk bands ever. Don't we?

So, is the PI entry still locked for further edit?Chlamor 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can request unprotection here.--RWR8189 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The page isn't protected (locked), it's semi-protected. That means that it can be edited by any registered account that's more than about four days old. Chlamor, you and Zoraida (who created the PI article) should soon be able to edit it if you're not already. Katzenjammer has just made a major edit.
I admit, though, that my answer to your question was imprecise. What I should have said was that an AfD listing doesn't affect the editability of the article, except that edits to remove the AfD notice are prohibited. The AfD notice doesn't cause protection but it also doesn't insulate the article from being protected or semi-protected through other mechanisms, as this one was.
If you want all the new visitors from PI to be able to edit, including those who don't want to register and those who are still too new, you could create a subpage in your user space at User:Chlamor/Progressive Independent draft. Create it by clicking on that red link I just gave you, and pasting in your current draft. You should also put a notice at Talk:Progressive Independent that the draft is available, and give the link. Then anyone, even unregistered users, can edit the draft. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to take this moment to thank all the PI members for diverting attention to another victim of Wikipression, the People for Change website so often mentioned in your impassioned pleas, has now been submitted for deletion as well. So once again your tomfoolery has resulted in another site suffering your exigencies, much like the Democratic Party you all rail against, you must always take everyone down when you enter conflict.

So thanks for that, guys. Really, none of this matters in the least. Of course, our website is at least in the top million of sites on the web! And to Tinoire, I love you so. See you at the voting booth, kids. 70.32.164.21 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Mike Hickerson

For goodness sake get a grip. Target the people who are abusing the process with their anti-progressive political agenda, not their other victims! Katzenjammer 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: whew, today's the day when this discussion will be closed, and any meatpuppets incapable of imagining any source of opposition save for partisan deviltry could vanish into the sunset. Whatever one thinks of a mindset where the world is divided into slavish supporters and Enemies, I know this: Stalin and Mao must be laughing their backsides off. RGTraynor 06:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • More precisely, today's the earliest day when this discussion can be closed -- but it might not be. When an AfD discussion is still active, the admins can choose to let it continue to percolate for a while. JamesMLane t c 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does only hyperbole get any attention? I reiterate my call for a pro-deletion discussant to address the relevance of precedent. Thank you. Iverson 09:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Have any of the articles listed survived AfD, and if so, on what basis? We have to have analogous examples to even start discussing precedent, its possible that they are all non-notable articles that haven't been found yet. Perhaps you should consider listing them.--RWR8189 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As I am not a mind reader, I have no idea what basis there is for the absence of deletion. On the other hand, I do have the presence of data, as you do. There is no need to be coy. Is precedent valuable in forming an opinion or is it not? That, and not an ad hoc list of chores, is the sensible beginning of answering this question. Thank you. Iverson 13:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


User:

In my opinion, the pro-deletion faction is unecessarily cautious. There is no chance that the opinions most frequently expressed on PI will become largely popular.

A lot of the people there have views closer to my own than the right wing boards, even the more center-right ones.

Just as an example, it is not at all unusual to find posts on PI that advocate fundamental change of US policies, as opposed to reframing or more palatable presentation, or even having the policies presented by this or that telegenic politician. So corporate rule enthusiasts, regardless of party affiliation or which politician they are devotees of, need not fear that the site's presence in Wikipedia will cause someone who was just on the verge of writing a check to a rich politician will instead decide to oppose the crusades on general principle, regardless of whether this or that country disobeyed America by obtaining weapons or whether the invasion and occupation of Iran is effected via nuclear or conventional weapons.

Not only are such views unlikely to become popular, it is a fair question whether expressing them might constitute a violation of the Patriot Act.

But those very aspects make it so unusual that anything that ends in "pedia" and includes any online forum ought to include PI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuctapeFatwa (talk • contribs) .

The above is DuctapeFatwa's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment why is it ANY AfD on a political forum article must be politically motivated?--Tollwutig 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. But when we have evidence of one-sided behavior, we'd be fools to take the behavers' claims of high-minded impartiality at face value. Katzenjammer 17:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet Conservative Underground was nominated for deletion, so is this a Right Wing or Left Wing behavior?--Tollwutig 19:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Its Intolerant Behaviour , the human trait of attempting to filter out all that doesn't agree with ones worldview , and if laws or rules or guidlines can be utilised as tools for silencing dissent then thats great. Amfortas 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that it's common-or-garden-variety CYA behavior, myself, and not something that's unique to any one political faction. There would have been some credibility if there was a long history with these guys of them hunting down and knocking off 'minor' sites without regard to politics. But when it only happens after they get put on the spot, I think we're supported in believing that it's self-serving CYA rather than anything for which they should get credit. Katzenjammer 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


  • It seems the Bullies got what they wanted Amfortas 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)