Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose

Perhaps I am off-base, but I find it interesting that someone who wrote a glowing article on "The Huckabee Report" would request our page to be speedily deleted. Just an observation. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I'm assuming you mean me? The Huckabee Report is a radio show, not a political blog. I don't see the point here... TheAE talk/sign 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're correct; they simply operate on different sides of the political spectrum, and as I notated in the article comments, there are ideologically-different political blogs with less "mainstream" notice and purpose which do not seem to be in danger of being "speedily deleted". Just an observation one might infer a difference in ideology, rather than notability, led to that suggestion. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone feels it doesn't meet notability guidelines, it may be WP:AfD as well. But this discussion is about Motley Moose. TheAE talk/sign 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ks64q2, that's quite a breach of protocol. It's traditional to accuse the nominator of bias first, you know; I'm feeling distinctly left out here. Care to examine my edit history for signs of American political leanings? 9Nak (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I perused your article history and had no problem with it, and I don't mind having to "justify" the existence of this page, but you didn't suggest it be "speedily" deleted. So I felt no need to call you out on anything. I could, if you wanted me to?Ks64q2 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just making the point (on reflection rather badly) that this is not a politically-motivated witch hunt. 9Nak (talk)

Oh, I believe you, 9Nak- on your motivations, anyway= and since the "speedily deleted" notation seems to be gone, my qualms are somewhat mollified. No worries, fighting doesn't help us resolve this issue.Ks64q2 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the references have been heavily updated and sourced from notable places, I included a variety of other notable things The Motley Moose has done to distinguish itself from other political blogs, and did some general maintenance of the article. Any other suggestions for improvement now? I think we should be past the notability/deletion arguments now. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad references

I'm trying hard to assume good faith, but it's getting hard. Of the 16 currently cited references only one may be valid (The Cavalier Daily, 20 Oct 2008). Seven do not mention the Motley Moose once (#7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15). Three are from the site itself (#1, 8, 16). Two are trivial mentions (#2, 6). #4 is by the founder and references a trivial mention, #5 has negative value as a reference if anything, and #13 is a single mention on a bio page. 9Nak (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to edit and run, gotta take care of the baby; lemme repost this from the Project page: "For references, I'd question articles like , which was done with a now-US Congressman in one of the most closely-fought elections in the country. Most serious contenders for US Congress don't sit down with "un-notable" blogs, and said Congressman narrowly won the election by the strength of the numbers he got out of the voting precient the blog is headquartered/most active and popular in; the article referenced from The Cavalier Daily ran a mere two weeks before the election. Obviously, they haven't claimed to be the ones to "put him over the edge", as that would be presumptuous (and impossible to prove in any case), but it's something to consider in re notability. Furthermore, perhaps the Wikipedian standards in this area could be considered more fluid than rigid; there are a number of notable regulars on the site (some of whom, I believe, have their own Wikipedia pages), so while they don't mention the site specifically somewhere to be cited, the fact they participate on the site should add to it's noteworthiness. Another consideration is that one of the major sites linked source the article/scoop without mentioning the cite by name (just indirectly through the URL in a footnote); this is sort-of a Catch 22, as they apparently pay attention to the site, but gave no credit for us to reference to it." In particular, that interview that was done with that Congressman was done *for* the site... so, again, that seems to be a catch-22 to use as a reference to the site. The other references to individuals are trying to establish the diverse and notable crowd that frequents the site- as I understand, again, some of those people have their own wikipedia pages; perhaps we could link to those instead? Though that would seem to fall into the circular-citation logic trap you want us to avoid- I assume one can't quote Wikipedia as a notable source in regards to the article? There's a start! Ks64q2 (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)