Talk:Progressive Bloggers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28/3/2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Deletion
It constitutes bias by inclusion for this to be treated differently from Blogging Tories, its equivalent entity on the other end of the political spectrum. They need to be either both kept or both deleted. I am not opposed to further AFD debates if people are unconvinced of notability, but I will absolutely insist that any further deletion attempts batch them together for a single result that applies equally to both. Any process which sees one of them kept and the other deleted constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. And, for the record, I took exactly the same position the last time they went up for AFD, when this one got kept and Blogging Tories got deleted. Bearcat 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not consistent. Did you just restore this despite the AFD result? I don't think this is a good idea. Friday (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Consistency may not be one of Wikipedia's primary values, but NPOV is a non-negotiable requirement. It's also important to note that the last time they were put up for AFD, the exact opposite result occurred: this one got kept and Blogging Tories got deleted. (It was later restored by WP:DRV on the very same "bias by inclusion" grounds.) There were only three choices here: restore this, delete Blogging Tories despite that AFD result, or leave everything as it was despite the fact that it constitutes an NPOV violation to deem one more notable than the other. And again, if somebody wants to shoot for AFD again, that's fine by me — but it has to be one joint AFD with the same result applying to both topics. Bearcat 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see at all how this is a neutrality issue. If one of these groups has gotten significant coverage and the other hasn't, this counts for much more than our own personal notions of what's fair. "But we have this other article!" is almost never sound reasoning at AFD, and as an admin I would expect you to know this. I'd also expect that you'd take it to deletion review when you disgree, rather than reverting the deletion and sticking to your guns about it even when it's pointed out that this restoration was inappropriate. Friday (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the case that one of them has gotten significant coverage and the other one hasn't; their coverage levels in the media have been comparable. I'll happily put them up for DRV together, but there's simply no valid grounds to treat them as non-equivalent. Bearcat 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see at all how this is a neutrality issue. If one of these groups has gotten significant coverage and the other hasn't, this counts for much more than our own personal notions of what's fair. "But we have this other article!" is almost never sound reasoning at AFD, and as an admin I would expect you to know this. I'd also expect that you'd take it to deletion review when you disgree, rather than reverting the deletion and sticking to your guns about it even when it's pointed out that this restoration was inappropriate. Friday (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Consistency may not be one of Wikipedia's primary values, but NPOV is a non-negotiable requirement. It's also important to note that the last time they were put up for AFD, the exact opposite result occurred: this one got kept and Blogging Tories got deleted. (It was later restored by WP:DRV on the very same "bias by inclusion" grounds.) There were only three choices here: restore this, delete Blogging Tories despite that AFD result, or leave everything as it was despite the fact that it constitutes an NPOV violation to deem one more notable than the other. And again, if somebody wants to shoot for AFD again, that's fine by me — but it has to be one joint AFD with the same result applying to both topics. Bearcat 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Comparable meaning few or none, apparently? This article has been around a good long time and still lacks anything resembling a proper source. I don't understand why you'd restore unverifiable content that was properly deleted via AFD. This hardly seems responsible. Friday (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- It had comparable sources to Blogging Tories. You're perfectly free to question the validity of the sources, but it is not the case that Blogging Tories had valid sources and this one didn't — the articles had comparable sources in quality and number, sometimes even the same sources. Said sources, therefore, are either valid in both cases or not valid in both cases. You can't say that the same sources are valid in one case and invalid in the other. Bearcat 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If its not the case that one is not more notable than the other, then we need more than just your word to verfiy this. In the Blogging Tories AfD, enough sources were found for a consensus to emerge that the article passed WP:WEB. Such sources were not presented during the AfD for this article, and they have not been presented since then. WP:V is not negotiable, and does not require a non-notable article stay in the project for the sake of balance. If you were not an admin I probably would have nominated this article for speedy deletion under G4--RWR8189 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- As noted elsewhere, comparable sources were presented for both articles. This is not a situation where one article had legitimate sources and the other one didn't — they had equivalent sources which were evaluated differently based on the closers' personal judgement calls. We simply can't say that the same source is valid in one case and not in the other. Bearcat 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
