Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Blogging Tories

message: I ranted a bit on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Canadian blogosphere, but I think it's relevant to this discussion also. Friday 15:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

message: === Summarised arguments ===
The below represents how I summarise the debate, nothing more. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsing the discussion 

message: The below represents how I summarise the debate, nothing more. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarised arguments 

message: ==== Arguments to delete ====
==== Notable members don't make notability ====
This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Blogging Tories]]

message: This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable members don't make notability 

message: *Unless someone can convince me why not to, I'm going to vote delete. Don't we have a policy on self-published authors? -R. fiend 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covered under "self published authors"" 

message: * Delete - Not notable. More importantly, I just wanted to point to this post on a blog, which, in my view, contravenes Wikipedia's no sock puppet policy. It may be unfairly influencing the balance of this conversation.
*:unsigned vote by Dbarefoot, his ninth edit, even if he's right about the potential meatpuppet storm. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet concerns 

message: *Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. - Randwicked 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non notable plus 

message: *Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable only 

message: *Delete 65.34.232.136 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No argument presented 

message: *Keep. How can one "new media" delete references to another "new media".  Blogs are useless?  As opposed to anything that has been posted to the internet dating back to bulletin boards?  Blogging is part of the future of the internet, get use to it.
*Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philisophical 

message: *Keep. Notable right-wing blogging site, counterpart to Progressive Bloggers. Luigizanasi 02:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep for symmetry 

message: *Keep. Both Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories are notable by any definition other than a US-is-the-centre-of-the-universe one. I'm personally a little tired of the deletists around here. User:Dr.Dawg17:25 15 November 2005 [DST]
*:vote actually by , has eleven edits, ten to AfDs, one to this article. Lord Bob 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias 

message: *Strong Keep. The point of an online encyclopedia is to be a resource for more than just the things you would find in a regular encyclopedia. I checked out the website, and they have a sizable readership, so it seems they aren't some small group that is just wasting space on the Wiki - this belongs here. Keep it. John Hawke 19:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable due to number of members or notable members 

message: *Keep. I was in great doubt on this one, but it seems useful to me. Usually I vote for deletion on this kind of things, but if they actually achieved something (however left-wing I am), this may be kept. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable in more words 

message: *Strong Keep. This blogroll is important to Canadians. User:'Expert' Tom12:56 16 November 2005 [DST]
*:user's first edit. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just "notable" 

message: * Systemic bias in favor of all things internet-related has been identified on Wikipedia also.  Countless flash movies, personal websites, blogs and myspace users get articles written about them, when they generally shouldn't. Individual politicans may be encyclopedic, but their blogs rarely are.  This article is about a website that aggregates content from a bunch of different blogs.  Surely the "notability" of a few noteworhty politicans does not automagically transfer that far up the chain?  What's next, an article about the physical server that this website runs on?  
* For those that care about verifiability (which I believe we frequently lose sight of), this article has no references.  If anyone can find references to make this verifiable, please put them in the article, not on the Afd page.  People reading the article need to be able to see why this website, out of the millions, appears in an encyclopedia.  Friday 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguemts of broader nature 

message: ==== Arguments to delete ====
This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Blogging Tories]]

message: This article was marked for AfD by an anon for reasons that seems to be making a point, but then blanked (apparently the anony thought better of it). But the AfD tag was still on the page when I went over to see if it was worthy of being deleted, and I think it is. So I'll save the anonymous guy the trouble of being branded a point'er and nominate it myself. It's a not extraordinary blog group, and though it has some interesting members it doesn't make the group notable in of itself. Delete. Lord Bob 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments to delete 

message: *Strong Keep.  Blogging Tories is an invaluable resource for Conservatives and politically active Canadians, this is not just some random personal blog; it is a huge online community with thousands of readers and contributors.
*Keep. How can one "new media" delete references to another "new media".  Blogs are useless?  As opposed to anything that has been posted to the internet dating back to bulletin boards?  Blogging is part of the future of the internet, get use to it.
*Keep. Both Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories are notable by any definition other than a US-is-the-centre-of-the-universe one. I'm personally a little tired of the deletists around here. User:Dr.Dawg17:25 15 November 2005 [DST]
*:vote actually by , has eleven edits, ten to AfDs, one to this article. Lord Bob 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I know why people don't find the membership to be convincing.  These people could be members of a local supper club too, right?  Does that make the club significant?  The blogging torries is a website who aggregrates content from people's blogs.  Couldn't there be any number of such websites?  What makes this one special?  I could make a website tomorrow that aggregates content from these people's blogs.  Their best claim to fame seems to be when newsworthy events happened which were leaked on the Internet.  By having a connection to that leak, they claim they're significant.  This is crazy.  If I ran into Dick Cheney with my car and got my name in the news, do I deserve an encyclopedia article?  Certainly not, and neither do the Blogging Tories.  No disrepect meant to them or their politics; I'm strictly speaking about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And on the stated grounds, this would be less notable than Daily Kos or The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler exactly why? Bearcat 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you asked. Here: 227,000 vs 7,750,000 vs 595,000 google results for each respective group you listed. Which is precisely why they were NOT put up for AFD when I was scanning :Category:Blogs for useless cruft. --Timecop 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "a bigger country can inherently generate more Google links than a smaller one can" implies that smaller countries should therefore be less entitled to Wikipedia coverage? Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I lied. Rottweiler wasn't in :Category::Blogs which is why I missed it. --Timecop 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Other articles are not the concern here.  Web stuff is overrepresented here at Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that unverifiable and insignificant websites sometimes have articles about them.  Let's judge each article on its own merits, or maybe use the WP:WEB guideline for websites.  To answer your specific question, Daily Kos appears to have significant traffic compared to the other ones, even if adjusted by a factor of 5 for the populartion difference between US and Canada.  Friday (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A factor of 5" does not account for the population difference between the US and Canada. And the WP:WEB guideline quite specifically states that notability can be defined by Alexa rank OR other criteria of the type that have already been proven here, not Alexa AND other criteria. Bearcat 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right.  Call it a factor of 10 then.  It still doesn't compare.  I don't see how other criteria have "already been proven", per my above objections which have not been answered.   Friday (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, as I've stated before, a larger country by definition generates a higher volume of Internet traffic than a smaller one, which is precisely why the notability of a website has to be defined by its own context. Argument by Internet traffic alone, by definition, is an assertion that Canadian stuff has less notability just because it's Canadian — the arguments are inseparable from each other, because Canada's smaller size means a site of Canadian-specific interest inherently can't generate the traffic to compete on raw numbers. And statistically, simply multiplying the lesser site's traffic volume by the population differential isn't a mathematically reliable comparison of influence. The questions of the site's influence in Canadian politics, its notable members, its media presence, etc. have already been answered numerous times. The only valid measure of influence is whether this and ProgBlog are as notable within Canadian politics as Daily Kos is within American politics. The contextual relationship has to be taken into account. Bearcat 04:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments to keep 

message: * Systemic bias in favor of all things internet-related has been identified on Wikipedia also.  Countless flash movies, personal websites, blogs and myspace users get articles written about them, when they generally shouldn't. Individual politicans may be encyclopedic, but their blogs rarely are.  This article is about a website that aggregates content from a bunch of different blogs.  Surely the "notability" of a few noteworhty politicans does not automagically transfer that far up the chain?  What's next, an article about the physical server that this website runs on?  
* For those that care about verifiability (which I believe we frequently lose sight of), this article has no references.  If anyone can find references to make this verifiable, please put them in the article, not on the Afd page.  People reading the article need to be able to see why this website, out of the millions, appears in an encyclopedia.  Friday 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm willing for my suggestion to count as a merge as well if it helps build consensus.  I don't believe this should have its own article, but it's possible it could be mentioned elsewhere.  However, the article you've suggested as a merge target is on Afd also, and I believe it's original research.  I wonder if Politics of Canada or Political Culture of Canada is a good place for this stuff.  I still think whatever's used should be verifiable, though. Friday (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguemts of broader nature