Wikipedia:Deletion review/Conservative Underground

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

The result of the debate was keep deleted. - brenneman^{L} 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Underground

This request was originally posted at WT:DRV who commented "forgive me, for I am new here, this was posted on admin message page, and I was directed to this project page, to which I cannot post."

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground (2nd nomination) (closed as "deleted" on 19 Apr 2006)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground (closed as "no consensus" on 17 Jan 2006)

I would like to challenge the decision to delete Conservative Underground from wikipedia.

The members of CU were unaware that this discussion was taking place.

Our listing was nominated by BenBurch, who ironically used criteria that his own site (White Rose Society) does not even meet, yet his site was not deleted when nominated for deletion. His nomination was bolstered by an organized band of his malcontent buddies from Democratic Underground, because they are upset that we monitor and comment on their activities.

A number of notable events have occurred at Conservative underground, such as an exclusive interview with Jeff Gannon, former member of the White House press corps.

My own recent work on CU was picked up and linked on a tremendous number of conservative sites, which was my outing of supposed "Ashamed Republican" Jeb Eddy, who gets his picture on the AP wire at every northern California anti-war protest by holding up a sign stating "I'm Republican and Ashamed". I discovered that he has been a Democratic donor for many years, and heads a progressive foundation. The disemination of this information throughout the conservative blogosphere resulted in the SF Chronicle pulling a photo of Eddy from their online edition.

CU has recently also been falsely accused of issuing threats by DUer Ava on the Alan Colmes radio show.

I think these things are quite notable, and considering that we at CU were unaware of the attempts to get us deleted, Conservative Underground deserves to be undeleted.

Wikipedia was manipulated in this case. Crockspot

• Amazing. This is the first time I've seen someone suggest that we undelete an article because the subjects didn't get the opportunity to perform the obligatory astroturfing on the discussion. It's like the old Beano joke, "Miss! Can I retake the test? The dog ate my crib sheet!" Last close was valid, no new evidence, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Gotta agree with Sam. Undeletion because the people involved want it kept isn't good enough grounds. They need to discuss their reasons why they think the AfD's closure was not correct. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per both the above. I love the fact that it only requires liberals to back their arguments with facts, but in the end this is just another political web forum, of which there exist more than can be counted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion of the article based upon the second AfD nomination makes no sense, especially when compared with the first nomination. Here is the result of the first nomination discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground

  8 "Delete," 3 "Keep," 1 "Merge"

  The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  And the second: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground (2nd_nomination)

  6 "Delete," 3 "Keep"

  The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  So with less participation and less "votes" for deletion than the first time, the article was still deleted. Why? Why was there "no consensus" the first time, but a consensus (supposedly) the second time? Jinxmchue 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Consensus is usually roughly defined as 70% for deletion. Going purely by the numbers, the first AfD was 67% in favour of deletion. The second was actually 7 for delete, 3 for keep - you forgot to count the nominator's opinion. That's 70%, and generally justifies deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD has nothing to do with the numbers. Please, Sam, you know better. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Chances are you know that I do know better, but admins may still close by the numbers if there is no reason to do otherwise. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Because we are emphatically not voting. We are discussing the relevant evidence, policies and arguments. Closures of these discussions are made on more than mere vote-tallies. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• This comment was left on WT:DRV by anon user:65.93.187.86
  Since the other page is locked, I must respond here. I direct you to bullet three of the criteria for why a deletion can be challenged. None of us were aware that we were up for deletion, otherwise you would have gotten plenty of rationale for why it should not be deleted. I also direct you to the deletion history. Why was it left undeleted the first time, and on the second round, with less participation and less votes for deletion, it was deleted?
  This seems patently unfair. If there is a liberal agenda going on here, just say so. We already suspect that to be the case.
  crockspot
• Endorse deletion. The subjects of an article do not have any special say over what happens to that article; the fact that they were unaware of the AFD is therefore not a valid grounds for overturning the result. Additionally, the phenomena of forums directing their members to flood Wikipedia deletion debates is something to be strongly discouraged. Finally, given that few members of that forum seem to have been Wikipedia editors before their site's article was nominated for deletion, it seems likely that their positions on the matter would not have been counted anyway on account of their having registered specifically for that debate. --Aquillion 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted Each close above was within the closer's discretion. Different debates may be interpreted differently by different closers, and that is as it should be: in human judgments, there is always a subjective element. Separately, while it is true that DRV guidelines allow relisting in the event a contributer to an article fails to notice its AfD, this is intended as a courtesy to regular Wikipedia editors, and not an invitation to disgruntled partisans, that they might have occasion to practive "POV-pushing" and "wiki-lawyering" en masse. The arguments presented in the nomination are unpersuasive. Xoloz 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close and keep deleted. If there is "plenty of rationale for why it should not be deleted", I'd suggest you present it now.-Polotet 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV is not about judging the content of deleted articles, nor is it about judging the subjects of deleted articles. It is about whether the proper deletion processes have been followed. And they have been followed. And suspecting a liberal agenda on wikipedia because an article about a conservative organization has been deleted is just absurd. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jeff Gannon a member of the press corps??? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionJust because you didn't get a chance to engage in meatpuppetry the last time (see nom for proof of that intent) doesn't mean you should get a second chance to do so. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted no out-of process here. Failure to meatpuppet is not grounds for overturning a deletion, is is grounds for rejoicing. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:58, 16 May 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.