Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Progressive Independent - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chlamor (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 16 April 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:39, 16 April 2006 by Chlamor (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Progressive Independent

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)

Your afd is a total joke so we thought we'd give you one also. How dare you try to intimidate people here!
Not surprisingly Democratic Underground 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.
Now kindly get off your imaginary soapbox. I'm afraid you'll break your neck.
Your entire interaction has been rude. What's your problem? Zoraida 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. I have no association with DU or any other "progressive" movement as you might derive from my username. Thank you.--RWR8189 12:26, 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.
  • Delete or prove notability and then substantial editing. It seems a case of using Misplaced Pages as Soap box. --Francisco Valverde 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment Seems fairly non-notable right now and doesn't meet WP:WEB. 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 RWR8189's first attempt to contact the creator was after the AfD in response to Zoraida's vandalism of the AfD notice. Piss poor example of WP:CIVIL behavior and AfD process is what is keeping me from opining Delete.--Isotope23 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)—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 Misplaced Pages.--RWR8189 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 yourpolitics? Katzenjammer 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.--RWR8189 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. Katzenjammer 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. Katzenjammer 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Here in the talk section of the Free Republic 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.--RWR8189 13:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Katzenjammer 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites), not partisan politics, and it seems a consensus is forming that agrees with me.--RWR8189 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


  • 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 (UTC). Also, user's first edit.
  • Doc, if you're an English professor, presumably you teach your students to avoid rhetoric fallacies -- such as appeal to authority or strawman arguments. 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.--Calton | Talk 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. Iverson 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?Katzenjammer 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? 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)

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). Katzenjammer 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. RGTraynor 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please don't try to wrong-foot me, or force a strawman on me. Of the three (now four) voters where I have some political information, their votes are consistent with the idea that opposition is politically motivated. Katzenjammer 13:38, 15 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites) guidelines. I also just became aware from your comment of Conservative Underground and its AfD, and if it was still open I would have voted to delete as well.--RWR8189 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
'Your actions speak so loudly that I can't hear a word you say' Katzenjammer 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to be interested in rational discussion, so I will let you be.--RWR8189 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.--Tollwutig 18:03, 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)

  • Comment: Unfortunately, this is the PI AfD discussion, not any such discussion for any other article. If you wish to speak on any other AfD (or file one yourself) you are of course welcome -- as long as it is in the proper place -- but we'd prefer to rule on this article's non-merits. RGTraynor 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlamor 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Comment: If you are unable or unwilling to see the connection or understand the point of my comment than you may have an agenda as the point was clearly articulated and easy to see. And of course it relates directly to the PI AfD discussion. The analogy was a simple one. Your comment seems rather disingenuous.Chlamor 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (chlamor)

  • Hm. Let's make this simpler then. We don't do analogies on AfD. Each nomination is (theoretically) viewed on its own merits, without reference to any other. That being said, you may continue to infer that no one could possibly disagree with you without having some hidden and presumably sinister agenda, but that mindset is a better fit on the partisan shows of talk radio -- in which demonizing those who disagree with you has long since been not only tolerated but expected -- than it is here. Misplaced Pages still isn't a soapbox. RGTraynor

Chlamor 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Your comments are snide and inaccurate. The merit of "notability" is what has been the point of contention here and to point out that by using comparisons as to what is proven to be "notable" is perfectly valid. One does not live in a vaccuum.Chlamor 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (chlamor)

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 Misplaced Pages.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Comment, the above user's first edit was on April 14, 2006. --Jersey Devil 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, source of meatpuppetry. --Jersey Devil 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a direct comment from User:Atlant asking people to vote keep on that political forum. According to Misplaced Pages policy (See Here) it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Misplaced Pages articles that are being debated. It's this kind of meat puppetry and blatent disrespect for Misplaced Pages policy that really angers me.
The PI article on WIkipedia will only be deleted if the vote for deletion currently being held goes against it.
So far, though, only three people (including me) have posted a "keep"; why doesn't everyone here simply vote "Keep" and overwhelm the wingers?
Atlant .--Jersey Devil 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, good old ballot-stuffing... Cancels out any reservations I had about how this nomination went down. A note to any PI folks that come here, please read WP:WEB. Your energy would be better spent meeting those criteria so nobody has a solid reason to AfD the article, or vote delete.--Isotope23 03:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I am a casual user of wikipedia. This is the first time I have been inclined to comment on something. Being both a member of PI and a big fan of wikipedia, I can't help but be dissapointed in how some wikipedia members have handled some of my peers from PI. I'd like to refer you to a Misplaced Pages guidline, Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers. Being a member of PI I can say that the majority of the people there are reasonable and friendly. The fact that they are new to making an entry, and unfamiliar with many of the nuances of wikipedia entry does not excuse the almost immediate attack to these newcomers. I would suggest removing the deletion tag and marking the article for cleanup (which PI is already doing).--Kralizec 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I see that I have been accused of being a DU member on your board . You know, there are more people than one that use the "Jersey Devil" screen name on the internet. I've been on Misplaced Pages for more than a year to prove myself in not being some kind of a sockpuppet for another board. The fact is that your website has an alexa ranking of over 2.5 million . According to WP:WEB in order for a website to be notable it must meet one of the three:
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This criterion excludes:

  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
    • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
  • The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
  • The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

There is no evidence of any of these critera being met and therefore your site is not notable no matter how much you think it is notable. We've dealt with thousands of people trying to plug their websites on Misplaced Pages, this isn't anything new that we haven't dealt with before. Your posters are acting as if this is some "big conspiracy" by some other board to try an "silence" you and are now trying to play victims when clear facts showing meatpuppetry emerge.--Jersey Devil 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, to fellow Misplaced Pages regulars, be ready to put a speedy deletion tag on this for recreation of deleted material because User:Atlant on that board says that immediately after this page is deleted it is going to be recreated. --Jersey Devil 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, what is this? You have shown your bias, Jersey Devil. I can only hope there are reasonable people who will not heed your call. I am a member of PI but in no way do a few members such as Atlant or whoever else represent the views as a whole. You are plainly guilty of pigeonholing. At the best, you have failed at even representing the effort being made at PI to make this entry up-to-standard, depite the members' discourse at the complexity and resistance of making a good-willed entry here. I also remind "regular Wikipedians" to note that User:Jersey Devil seems to follow some guidelines while ignoring others. I would like again to refresh "fellow Misplaced Pages regulars" memories. Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers. ] Perhaps you haven't read it in a long time, being so regular as you are. In this guideline it states, We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value. It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Misplaced Pages. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard".

This article was attacked almost immediately by User:RWR8189, who has shown a blatent disregard himself of several guidlines, including the above newcomer's guideline and WP:Civil. Until I cited the newcomers guide, the main complainers had given little or no recommendations before deciding to slap a delete tag on it. Once again, the newcomers guide says, If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*. If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing. A mere reading of this AfD shows the opposite of this behavior. Indeed, you the main critics of this entry have taken the role of a "superior" rather than a "peer".

I can go on citing the guide, but my point is made. I am making this appeal to those "Misplaced Pages regulars," who, upon reading the re-written entry, will see the attacks on the entry are unwarranted.--Kralizec 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Response I'm not sure what guidelines you are accusing me of breaking. I am mostly interested in the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and the removal of non-notable articles, as they attack this integrity and credibility.
My first contact with Zoraida was a welcome note on his/her talk page. I did not believe that PI was notable enough be included in the Democratic Underground article, so obviously it would be consistent to nominate the article for AfD when I became aware of its existance. Zoraida responded by making several bad faith edits and acting in a very uncivil manner.
My problem with this article doesn't center around the way it is written, it is a problem of notability.
The fact still remains that this article is not consistent with the notability guidelines that have been cited several times, and it seems a consensus has emerged around this point, and I anticipate this discussion is near its conclusion.--RWR8189 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Chlamor 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)An introductory comment from Tinoire the Admin at PI who registered to post it herself but could not due to security software problems on her computer:

Comment My apologies for disturbing this fascinating discussion. I'm the Admin at Progressive Independent and I've been genuinely saddened to see some of the comments on this page as well as the passionate intensity with which certain voters are trying to get PI's entry deleted without even according the courtesy of a rewrite. I think it's been made quite clear on our website that we agree the article is weak and some of us have been working very hard to bring it up to "notability/NPOV" standards with the understanding that we have 4(?) days to do so. Despite my perception that there's something not quite right about the way our entry was jumped upon and immediately tagged for deletion because someone took offense to a comment the original editor had made on DU's page that merely mentioned that, in addition to People for Change, another website was also launched (PI) so that she could link the entry (10:06, 13 April 2006 65.172.237.186 (→the last paragraph under Criticism). Her entry was rudely deleted and redeleted and again redeleted by RWR8189 before he decided to go to the Progressive Independent Page and request that be deleted. If mention of People for Change is deemed noteworthy, I don't understand the vehemence with which mention of PI, which outperforms People for Change is deemed otherwise and I've found the neutrality of certain arguments questionable.

I ask you, is this how things are normally done at Misplaced Pages when new people show up? Were all of you put through this wringer? Or were you given time to absorb constructive criticism and modify your entries?

The writers at PI are responsible for much of the initial research on important issues like PNAC that most people had never heard of 4 years ago. The work done in our Election Fraud Forum by published authors and mathematicians (who fight the statisticians) has been well received as has, for example, one user's compilation on Hurricane Katrina.

In a couple of days we hope to have an entry notable enough to stand at Wiki so that others can build upon it, though one of our members did note that Wiki takes great pains to point out that these are not rules or even official http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_criteria

Jersey Devil, if you're not the same Jersey Devil from DU, I apologize for my assumption.

And yes of course, IF my vote could be counted, it would be, from a neutral point of view- "Keep" with editing. Much editing. Chlamor 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Chlamor

  • Comment: A couple observations. First off, Don't Bite The Newcomers has been waved in our faces a few times in this discussion, but equally incumbent on said newcomers is not to bite the veterans. Instead, we've been lashed by the self-same newcomers with insults and the presumption that any AfD editor who can be identified as (or, as likely, accused of) holding political views opposed to their own must be acting out of bad faith.
Secondly, some of you seem to be operating out of the presumption that what we mean when we say "notable" is that an article is well-written, and to a NPOV standard. This is incorrect. We routinely vote in AfD discussions to delete very well-written and sourced articles that nevertheless are about non-notable subjects. This is one. Your forum is tiny, with relatively few hits and registered users. It has won no awards, been featured in no media sources, is frequented by no known major political figures, and has not been distributed by a major media content provider. The best article rewriting of which you are capable will not suffice until and unless your website gains the public prominence that it so far lacks. Improving the former will not sway us to any meaningful degree. Improving the latter would. RGTraynor 08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason that "Don't Bite The Newcomers" has been cited (not "waved in (your) faces") is that there is blatant cause, and as the more experienced contributor, you are not free to ignore it on the rationale that someone else did. Every parent knows what 's wrong with that line of discussion.

Everything is embedded in a context, so yes, everyone "does" analogies. As there is an established precedent for including a similar website on Misplaced Pages (People for Change), a truly neutral and analytical criticism from discussants here would include clarifying the meaningful difference between the successful entry and this one. It would not include exaggerated umbrage or organized attempts to delete revisions without the benefit of even reading them. Thank you. Iverson 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • 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?

Chlamor 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"Question": Can the entry be edited while the AfD is being discussed?Chlamor 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Category: