Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Progressive Independent: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:36, 14 April 2006 editChlamor (talk | contribs)12 edits []: 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← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:35, 1 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(121 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''Delete''', even without discounting new and unregistered users. ] (]) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{Calm talk}}
<B>Delete</b>
{{AfdAnons}}
<BR>This forum is not notable. ], and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article ] 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment from closing admin''': I refactored everything other than keep, delete, merge, etc. to the ] for readability. ] (]) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


<B>Delete</b>
<B>Your afd is a total joke so we thought we'd give you one also. How dare you try to intimidate people here! </b>
<BR>This forum is not notable. ], and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article ] 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
<BR> Not surprisingly ] can't tolerate mention of alternatives to it fascist forum. Misplaced Pages 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.
<BR>Now kindly get off your imaginary soapbox. I'm afraid you'll break your neck.
<BR>Your entire interaction has been rude. What's your problem?
] 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
: Please ]. I have no association with DU or any other "progressive" movement as you might derive from my username. Thank you.--] 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Weak keep with substantial editing''' -- We have articles about religious movements that have relatively few members (for example, ]) 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, this article really needs work and Wikifying so that it doesn't read like a vanity posting/marketing brochure.] 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep (with substantial editing)''' -- We have articles about religious movements that have relatively few members (for example, ]) 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.] 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC), updated 15 April 2006
:For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" ] thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--] 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" ] thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--] 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
::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 --] 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Seems like an advertisment more then anything --] 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Line 19: Line 23:
*'''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.--] 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''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.--] 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as nn. Alexa ranking over 2.5 million, forum with only 741 registered users, which as such things go is tiny. ] 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as nn. Alexa ranking over 2.5 million, forum with only 741 registered users, which as such things go is tiny. ] 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Seems fairly non-notable right now and doesn't meet ]. 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 ]'s first attempt to contact the creator was after the AfD in response to ]'s vandalism of the AfD notice. Piss poor example of ] behavior and AfD process is what is keeping me from opining Delete.--] 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''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)<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- --><noinclude>
]
*:'''Note''': this vote is the anon editor ]'s first contribution to Misplaced Pages.--] 16:19, 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 '''''your'''''politics? ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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.--] 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. ] 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. ] 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: in the talk section of the ] 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.--] 13:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


*<s>'''Strong KEEP'''</s> (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)<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- -->
::::::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. ] 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 ], not partisan politics, and it seems a consensus is forming that agrees with me.--] 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) *:'''Note''': this vote is the anon editor ]'s first contribution to Misplaced Pages.--] 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
**Discounted this recommendation as unregistered user. ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Reminder''': Please reference this guideline when voting: ]. Clearly this website does not meet any of the criteria.--] 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete Both''' of 'em for egregious violations of ] in pleading their case that the other should be deleted (as an aside to both complainants, remember what ] had to say about the casual flinging of the word ] around). Either that, or '''keep''' and put a mutual restraining order on the lot of them. ] 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete Both''' of 'em for egregious violations of ] in pleading their case that the other should be deleted (as an aside to both complainants, remember what ] had to say about the casual flinging of the word ] around). Either that, or '''keep''' and put a mutual restraining order on the lot of them. ] 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' it's just not notable enough for inclution. --]]]] 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' it's just not notable enough for inclution. --]]]] 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' nn blog. And the content of the article is extremely soapbox-y. ] 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' nn blog. And the content of the article is extremely soapbox-y. ] 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. -- ]]] 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. -- ]]] 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' nn political forum plug unfortunately leading to the use of meatpuppets and ] violations.--] 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Delete''' nn political forum plug unfortunately leading to the use of meatpuppets and ] violations.--] 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete delete delete'''. ] ] ] 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete delete delete'''. ] ] ] 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


* <s><B>Keep</b></s> (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 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:00, 14 April 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->. <small>Also, user's first edit.</small>

**Discounted due to lack of contributions. ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
* <B>Keep</b> (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 {{Unsigned|Iverson|01:00, 14 April 2006}}. <small>Also, user's first edit.</small>
:*Doc, if you're an English professor, presumably you teach your students to avoid rhetoric fallacies -- such as ] or ]. The former I think is obvious, but here's a hint for the latter: no Misplaced Pages notability standard I'm aware of refers to anything like "level of discourse" or other needlessly vague subjective standard.--] | ] 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. ] 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?] 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''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? ] 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) *'''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? ] 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 54: Line 42:
*'''Delete''' This is an ''encyclopedia'', not a catch-all for anything anyone thinks might be an interesting topic for idle discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' This is an ''encyclopedia'', not a catch-all for anything anyone thinks might be an interesting topic for idle discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 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). ] 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 Misplaced Pages's rules? Happily, we presume no such thing here as a general rule. ] 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:I wasn't aware being a "Reaganite" precluded one from participating in Misplaced Pages. 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 ] guidelines. I also just became aware from your comment of ] and its AfD, and if it was still open I would have voted to delete as well.--] 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
::'Your actions speak so loudly that I can't hear a word you say' ] 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:::You don't seem to be interested in rational discussion, so I will let you be.--] 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.--] 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ].--] 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ].--] 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


] 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 Pepole For Change currently has an entry when PI gets 14,000 more hits with google.More later. (chlamor)] 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ] 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)] 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- yet another non-notable article about a non-notable political cause. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. ] 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

<s>KEEP</s>: 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?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- -->
:<B>Note</b>The proceeding comment is ]'s first contribution to Misplaced Pages.--] 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**Discounted recommendations of very new user.

* ] 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.

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. ] 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)chlamor
*'''Comment''', the above user's first edit was on April 14, 2006. --] 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', source of meatpuppetry. --] 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**I am counting this keep nonetheless.

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

*<s>'''Keep'''</s>: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.")] 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
**Discounting this recommendation, user's only edits are to this AFD.
*<s>'''Keep'''</s>: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.

<s>'''Keep'''</s> The motivation behind this delete request is very suspicious ]
:'''Note''' The above comment is anon user ]'s first contribution to wikipedia.--] 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**Anon users' recommendations are discounted anyway.

*<s>'''Keep'''</s> : 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) ] 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**Discounted as contributions of very new user.
*'''Delete''' per ], ], ], and due in part to the flood of apparent meatpuppets. ] (]) 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per ] ] 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 07:35, 1 March 2023

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)

Progressive Independent

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Not a voteIf 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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.

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

  • 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
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)
You've told us to look at your username (and, I suppose, your user page); clearly you are a partisan.
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 01:00, 14 April 2006. Also, user's first edit.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete nn--MONGO 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)


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)

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 (talkcontribs) .

NoteThe proceeding comment is Kliljedahl's first contribution to Misplaced Pages.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 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.

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

  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
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.