Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackal (blogsite)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackal (blogsite)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The A7 speedy deletion tag was rightfully declined but this should still be deleted. No indication is given that this blog has any importance. Actually that's not quite true: some indication is given that the author is viewed by other bloggers as an idiot, a troll and a plagiarist. I guess it's better than nothing but it's not necessarily a good sign and it certainly doesn't even come close to the basic notability requirements. (Bonus deletion marks for the fact that the username suggests that the article's author is also the blogger) Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blog sites aren't generally notable. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article documents a blogsite. A generalization is not a reason for deletion.

Please note that a previous comment of mine was removed from this page when parts of it were not included in the talk page. I have attempted to address this by accessing the history and reintroducing the deleted content. Please take a care to edit accordingly. I would prefer all arguments to be maintained in their entirety. Jackal lady luck 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attempt to hide the fact that the administrator of The Jackal is also the writer of the article in question. The article raises notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law that requires further consideration, therefore it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal lady luck (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to say that the fact was hidden but simply to point out that the resulting conflict of interest was extra incentive to delete the article. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another question about "notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law". Even by your own account, the story goes like this: troll trolls, troll gets banned, troll threatens bogus lawsuit, people laugh at troll's threats, troll threatens bogus lawsuit about laughing at him. And as far as I can tell, that's the end of the story since it's obvious to all that the lawsuits were just a slightly more elaborate form of trolling. In any case, this is very far from anything resembling a notable Netiquette-related or Internet law-related incident. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one last thing. It's being argued on the article's talk page that the blog meets the notability requirements because "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". It is true that some of the blog posts are reposted on the fairly well-known blog-collective The Standard but we're talking about one post every ten days or so and 12 posts in total. [1] Pichpich (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the references does not seem to be in question, just the notability of the publications. An argument should not be made on assumptions. Even if further reference to validate was required, statistical information is currently unavailable.
A Wikipedia search of "notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law" has no results. Please clarify? I have referenced material and documented what happened, I have not written a personal account. Privately threatening a Lawsuit is not a form of trolling.

Are we talking about the same incident? You threatened a freedom of speech suit when banned for trolling someone's website. If you were not serious, it's a form of trolling. If you were being serious, I'm afraid I have to suspect complete idiocy. Pichpich (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia:Civility standard and be nice to the newbie. Jackal lady luck 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am neither an Inclusionist nor a Deletionist, and have shown that the article is unbiased by providing a potentially valid (emotive) reason for deletion within the article. Trying to discredit the article because of the authors previous conduct outside of Wikipedia is not a valid argument.
A number of works have been published within the contested reference. The timeline of those republications should be considered. The notability of the work is not only defined by the amount of publications referenced. There is no question that a reputable and independent organization has chosen to republish those works. Therefore the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) Criteria (3). Jackal lady luck 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep There is no conflict of interest as the article is unbiased and written from a Neutral point of view. Notable use of the OCILLA, Notable use of Blogger. Blog sites and references are notable. No defined republishing amount stated: Wikipedia:Notability (web). The article meets criteria (1)(3) for notability. Republishing signifies importance. Site content is relevant and notable: Google search The Jackal. Jackal lady luck 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I don't really think the WP:COI needs to be brought up right now. While writing an article about yourself or something you own is generally frowned upon in the community, it seems to be coming from a pretty neutral standpoint.

JLL, you keep saying that the article meets criteria 3. It seems a weak case, but I understand where you're coming from. Still, taken from WP:WEB: However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the content. I don't think a dozen or so blog posts relisted by The Standard meets notability standards. Also, the bulk of the contents in the article is a feud between bloggers. I don't think there is a solid reason this article needs to be on Wikipedia. Ish dar ian 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also meets criteria (1). The reference has multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Jackal lady luck 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I tried to look through them, and I didn't see any that were really "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". But I might have missed some. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard is a reliable and independent source. The Jackal's articles are published elsewhere in the New Zealand Blogosphere. Would you like me to list them all? Lifebaka declined speedy delete: "decline, giving benefit of the doubt based upon refs, and supposing that republishing signifies importance." *J L L 08:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided above does not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. As for your criteria one claim, the policy states, verbatim: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The content, in this case, is your site. I looked through all the refs in the article and did a brief Google search, and I was unable to find and reliable sources that discussed your site, aside from the Standard. The case with the Standard is not that IT is unreliable. The problem seems to be that it has been the only one to repost anything about your site. While it has reposted a dozen or so articles, it is still a singular source. The criteria three claim is a bit of a stretch to me, but the claim that the article meets the first criteria does not seem plausible. Ish dar ian 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect in pointing out the obvious, but a blogsite is not automatically a trivial publication, as defined by the criteria. Multiple meaning many, ie 12 independent publications as referenced. You should not lump those publications into a singularity. The guideline does not state that the republication has to occur on multiple outlets, just that there needs to be multiple republications that are independent and unbiased. The sites referenced in the article are not indiscriminate sources, the work published is not trivial in nature. The fact that those articles are then widely read on the second highest most popular Blogsite in New Zealand should be considered. The included information is verifiable. The article is new and requires more time to include items, which will increase its notability. The article is notable as defined within the shorter description of the word. The article should be kept or merged, there is no reason for a delete. J L L 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the references themselves should be independent of the subject, that is, independent of the Jackal. The Standard is not really independent of its own content. Also, the mauistreet example you gave just above isn't really significant coverage; that entry doesn't even really talk about the Jackal blog. It's something, but it isn't wp:GNG on its own, certainly. "Would you like me to list them all?"—Just, say, 2 good ones. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackal is independent of The Standard. They're separate blogs operated on entirely different platforms and run by completely different people. Please contact The Standard if you need further clarification of this. The Standard selects the articles through a process I have no information on. Perhaps they think the articles selected are notable. I have no control over that process or what articles are chosen for inclusion on The Standard. The Standard is reputable, independent and makes note of who wrote the articles at the top of the post. The Standard does not create the content, it republishes. I have already referenced multiple articles that have been independently republished. J L L 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize they are separate, but in some sense they are not totally independent. In any case, these aren't references about the subject, are they? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The sources don't appear to establish notability, they are mostly other bloggers whining about the subject. I don't think the level of redistribution on The Standard establishes notability. This article appears to essentially be self-promotion, what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest was written for. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Attack page also borderline WP:GNG / borderline WP:N. Disclaimer: I'm a New Zealand and an active member of WP:NZ, but I'd never heard of this blog or this article until this nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Standard (blog). I think The Standard as one of the top 5 NZ political blogs probably qualifies for a place. Since this blog is a small subset of that then this probably doesn't. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if that is a worthwhile redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it makes sense to think of it as a "subset" since the overwhelming majority of posts on the Jackal blog are not reposted on the Standard. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is referenced entirely from the blogosphere. May not even deserve a mention in the New Zealand blogosphere article. As an WPNZ member and NZer I also have not heard of this blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than hundreds of other low-traffic NZ blogs. I have never seen reference to the blog anywhere other than The Standard, where the blog's writer regularly republishes posts or summaries of posts as comments. The contributor's effort would be more usefully spent creating an article for The Standard itself. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not noteable. I've never seen a reference to it in the NZ media, and the blog does not have sufficient traffic to be independently noteworthy. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2011 (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.