Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers (joint nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories (joint nomination)

A nomination at deletion review to fix the inconsistency of outcomes between the two prior AfD's didn't come to a conclusion, which is why the two are now joint nominated here for more discussion. Prior AfD history above. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Progressive Bloggers Keep Blogging Tories.

I nominated both of these articles for deletion in February, at the time verifiable and attributable sources did not exist for either article. Non-trivial and independent sources for the Blogging Tories were presented at the AfD [1][2][3], as of now comparable or other reliable sources have not been presented for Progressive Bloggers. WP:V is not negotiable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. These are really difficult to source via the web, as all you get is trillions of blogs. Anyway, the Tories sourced as above (though one of those sources is YouTube); the Progressive has an inline source (the Toronto Star). Also, note that CBC gives both factions equal billing here. Or how about a media seminar from the University of Alberta? Even without this, I'd ignore all rules and say that deleting one without the other would be on very shaky ground; they're opposing factions of a Canadian political blog war. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't exactly say IAR; I would say that the rules need careful and creative interpretation in relation to the subject matter of the articles. Where does one expect to find information on blogs? Shall we instead omit coverage of the blogosphere because we adopted our RS rules before they became important.? RS means or ought to mean RS in relation to the way the subject is documented in the real world. DGG 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG is right - but just a thought - how about merging both to something like Canadian Political Blogging Groups? EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would probably be dozens/hundreds.Keeping to the major national parties and blogs at a national level has certain advantages. But your suggestion would be good for a category. DGG 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... you could merge these two, along with Liblogs and Green Bloggers and still have a pretty consise article. Watchsmart 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Bucketsofg 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both of them I feel there is enough notability. MrMacMan 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Notable, sufficient sourcing to survive AfD, DGG's RS in relation subject matter seems wise. Edivorce 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both How many times can the same articles be nominated for deleting?!? These sites are part of every day Canadian politics. They need to be kept. Jason Cherniak 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Jason Cherniak. GreenJoe 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both After some Googling, I'm with EliminatorJR. Seed 2.0 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.