Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers

VfD
AfD

I don't see any claim to notability in this article. Alexa rank of 185,932. It seems to fail every criterion of WP:WEB, no non-trivial coverage in verifiable and reliable sources. Previous keep arguments seemed to consist mostly of WP:ILIKEIT. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it certainly asserts notability, but the only external link is to the site itself. More independent sources are needed to demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Only listings in Google News Archive are from Vive Le Canada, which has some sort of affiliation, so not independent. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; doesn't seem to meet the criteria – Qxz 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB and does not seem notable enough to merit a Wiki article, for it to be notable it needs more secondary sources other than it's webpage, anybody can have a webpage. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article appears to have some merit. It could also benefit from improvements. I have noted that the editors of this article have not received notice of the AfD. User:Jayden54Bot provides notice for article 4 weeks old or less. Of course, if anything articles of greater duration, with multiple editors deserve greater process. I will manually provide notice to all editors of this article with the following neutral notice: "You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally favour keeping this, the only real concern I'm going to reiterate is that it needs to be treated the same way as Blogging Tories, as it constitutes bias by inclusion to deem one notable and the other not. So they both need to be considered here. I'm personally in favour of keeping both, but can reluctantly accept deletion as long as its ideological counterpoint is treated equivalently. Bearcat 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for pointing out that article, it is now nominated for deletion as well.--RWR8189 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hey, I tried to clean up this article and that one. But might I suggest nominating Liblogs, which is worse than both of these? Also, is the Blogging Tories AFD properly listed? Watchsmart 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has had more than enough time to mature, and still has no sources. Friday (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in the two or three earlier AFDs/VFDs. Bucketsofg 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here we go again. Progressive Bloggers has been mentioned by Canada's top TV network [[1]] and major newspapers [[2]].
I should also note that those Alexa rankings are suspect, because the Progressive Bloggers entry is not about www.progressivebloggers.ca, it's about all 230 sites that comprise the group. If we wanted to accurately reflect this entry's Alexa ranking, we'd have to combine the ratings of all the member blogs.
--The Invisible Hand 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mention of Progessive Bloggers on both of the above sources is trivial and does not satisfy WP:WEB.--RWR8189 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the previous two nominations. CJCurrie 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.