Talk:Crooks and Liars

This page was proposed for deletion by 108.184.108.23 (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment:
lack of citing reliable secondary sources that are independent from the site
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2019-07-07 with the comment:
Numerous incoming links indicates potentially disruptive or controversial deletion

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It needs to be deleted

I seen articles that have been properly cited that have been deleted by overzealous moderators. For the site crooks and liars, I tried to the best to my ability to look for third party sources that helped fix the issues in order to meet the notability guidelines, who are are independent of the company. I couldn't find any. The few third party sources that I did find, were from people who currently or have in the past worked for the company.

"Numerous incoming links indicates potentially disruptive or controversial deletion." Not sure why that matters, since from my understanding was that Wikipedia was supposed to act as a encyclopedia, not a site that depends on Search Engine Optimization from incoming links to boost Wikipedia's presence on the web. 108.184.108.23 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

40% of all sources right now come from the site itself or it's employees, and 20% come from the same book published by the Huffington Post. Another 20% comes from Nikolai Nolan's site, which is no longer maintained due to lack of interest from the public. On that site there is no mention of how many people voted. It makes me suspicious that both awards were swayed by crooks and liars staff, since no participation data is given at all. Then I found other blog sites, like https://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/07/2006-weblog-awards-my-picks that were pushing for votes for the company, as well as votes for a blog owned by a company employee. That makes me believe that there was influence in voting by friends of staff members at crooks and liars. 108.184.108.23 (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I think it shouldn't be deleted, ...

... I think it should have the banner questioning "notability" removed. Especially since there is a project afoot to "attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia." Blogs seem less important these days than they did in the previous two decades, but C&L was a significant lefty blog back in the golden days (pre-social media), and it is still up and running, with new content being posted daily.

Also, I don't know how you can fault a Wikipedia entry for having insufficient links when you consider, for example, the thousands of articles on highly specific models of guns, or, say, cricket players from the last century. bjkeefe (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]