Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Independent

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 Delete, even without discounting new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Comment from closing admin: I refactored everything other than keep, delete, merge, etc. to the talk page for readability. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
This forum is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article RWR8189 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with substantial editing) -- We have articles about religious movements that have relatively few members (for example, Christian Exodus) so I think we can afford articles about smallish internet communities as well. After all, there's no real upper bound on how many articles Wiki can have. I'm also troubled whenever I see partisans of one faction attacking the articles of partisans of another faction. On the other hand, as of the moment that the AfD was posted, this article really needs work and Wikifying so that it doesn't read like a vanity posting/marketing brochure.Atlant 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC), updated 15 April 2006[reply]

For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" Zoraida thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've told us to look at your username (and, I suppose, your user page); clearly you are a partisan.

• Delete Seems like an advertisment more then anything --Cloveious 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or prove notability and then substantial editing. It seems a case of using Wikipedia as Soap box. --Francisco Valverde 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or if you can prove notability then I will change to keep. This does seem link an Ad for it. Aeon 13:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless substantial notability can be cited. Current article looks like an advertisement. Let be re-written in a years time IF the site becomes more notable.--Tollwutig 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Alexa ranking over 2.5 million, forum with only 741 registered users, which as such things go is tiny. RGTraynor 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP (with editing to reduce the POVness). 'Important' and 'big' are not synonyms. Also, what makes anyone think the membership claims of other sites bear any relation to reality? (No, I'm not a member of that community)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .

  Note: this vote is the anon editor 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discounted this recommendation as unregistered user. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both of 'em for egregious violations of Godwin's Law in pleading their case that the other should be deleted (as an aside to both complainants, remember what George Orwell had to say about the casual flinging of the word Fascist around). Either that, or keep and put a mutual restraining order on the lot of them. Pat Payne 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just not notable enough for inclution. --Eivind^t@c 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blog. And the content of the article is extremely soapbox-y. Fishhead64 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete nn political forum plug unfortunately leading to the use of meatpuppets and WP:POINT violations.--Jersey Devil 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete delete.  RasputinAXP  c 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with editing) - The basis for keeping this entry is the (notability of the) level of the discourse, not the number of members. I am an English professor and a member of the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Writing Project, Rhetoricians for Peace, and am a discussant on the PI board. I can engage there without having my intelligence insulted. Thus: notable for the level of discourse. - Clark Iverson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iverson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2006. Also, user's first edit.
  • Discounted due to lack of contributions. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and what's this "notable for the level of discourse"?????? I'm sure you can achieve similar discourse in a dinner conversation. Is that notable? ccwaters 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seven hundred members is nothing, and video game/animation/other otaku forums at similiar levels of membership get nuked all the time, so delete. Being very very earnest doesn't get you an exception. And to some of the commenters above, if you want to practice the American Left's traditional arts of Dogmatic Splintering and the Circular Firing Squad, please do so elesewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--MONGO 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for anything anyone thinks might be an interesting topic for idle discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Trying Again: A comment on "notability": As currently stated in the Wiki guidelines/parameters the concept of notability is at best vague. An example of how the issue of notability as relates to PI can easily be put to rest is the simple fact that People For Change currently has an entry when PI gets 14,000 more hits with google.More later. (chlamor)Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- yet another non-notable article about a non-notable political cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Although relatively new, this site is attracting some of the finest thinkers on the left. My question would be: Why is this entry attracting delete requests from both Dems and Repubs? If PI is that innocuous and irrelevant why is it such a threat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kliljedahl (talk • contribs) .

NoteThe proceeding comment is Kliljedahl's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Discounted recommendations of very new user.

• Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)KEEP: Progressive Independent provides in-depth discussion that is kept outside of the rather narrow range of discussion in what is called 'party politics' in the US. In that sense it is an invaluable resource and forum for the large numbers of people (many who may defy conventional left-right labelling) who feel justifiably alienated from the rather stilted and dead end Republican-Democrat framework.[reply]

Progressive Independent has quickly become an exceptional internet archival source for difficult to find material that has been omitted from the heavily censored historical record. One would be hard pressed to find any site on the web that provides such a deep political assessment of either historical events or current events. Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)chlamor[reply]

• Comment, the above user's first edit was on April 14, 2006. [1]--Jersey Devil 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, source of meatpuppetry. [2]--Jersey Devil 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am counting this keep nonetheless.

• Keep: I believe the motivation by many here to delete is partisan. Such is the petty childishness of internet political fora.---Nicky Scarfo 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discounting this recommendation, user's fourth through sixth edits.

• Keep:Keep with some editing of the entry, particularly information related to its founding, mission statement, and contributions to the progressive movement through education and activism. When progressive sites such as What Really Happened and Wayne Madsen Report provide links to a progressive forum, that forum is certainly of note. The internet is becoming a grassroots gathering place for independents and progressives, and Progressive Independent is becoming a hub for vital information, activism, and informed discussion. (And yes, I registered at Wiki just to add to this discusssion. I am a regular Wiki user but was shocked to find objections to Progressive Independent's entry as "not notable" or a "soapbox.")RSamuelson 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discounting this recommendation, user's only edits are to this AFD.
• Keep:I am also newly registered here, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's clear that some objections are purely political. The entry needs some editing, but I see no valid reasons listed here for deletion. Why can't the authors edit the article while it is being voted on? I've heard that the authors should have five days for edit...is that correct?
  • Discounted per the author's own admission.

Keep The motivation behind this delete request is very suspicious 132.170.161.87

Note The above comment is anon user 132.170.161.87's first contribution to wikipedia.--RWR8189 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anon users' recommendations are discounted anyway.

• Keep : The article needs work alright , but should it be deleted ? Remember , Notability critiria are guidlines , not rules . I feel that deleting this article is close to pandering to one side.Someone is using the "guidelines" just to remove something he doesn't like. And I apologise for my misunderstanding (I'm 69.161.144.78) Amfortas 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discounted as contributions of very new user.
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:BALLS, WP:NOT, and due in part to the flood of apparent meatpuppets. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB Wstaffor 21:11, 18 April 2006 (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.