Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Graveyard

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 03:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Graveyard

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Political Graveyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines by a mile or so.

Some decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, other than mere name-mentions, please ....

~ Winged BladesGodric 05:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — FR  05:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — FR  05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apart from passing mentions in regional news (all of the 'Check out this website - it does this..' - no indepth coverage) there is no reliable secondary sourcing that demonstrates notability. The ones I did find that mention it (either in passing or briefly as above) have the whiff of press release churnalism about them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- independent coverage is almost non-existent.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another website, and not a particularly reliable one at that. I have struggled to find coverage of the thing that would cause it to meet GNG. - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep revised to keep based on the information provided re: old offline sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the creator and owner of the web site in question, so I presume I'm not eligible to vote on or work on the article. (I did do a few edits to correct errors some years ago.)
The site opened on July 1, 1996, and got a fair bit of press coverage over the past 22 years. Contrary to the implication above, I have never once issued any press releases or done any promotion to the media.
Here's a very incomplete list. Most of these are more than just passing mentions. Again, I presume it's not up to me to analyze the references or improve the article.
Newspapers:
  • New York Times, "Hitting a Self-Destruct Button," Week in Review, October 1, 2006
  • Roll Call (Capitol Hill, Washington DC), on January 21, 2002
  • Detroit Free Press Web Guide, on August 12, 2001
  • Chronicle-Tribune (Marion, Ind.), on May 27, 2001
  • Chicago Sun-Times's Connected section, October 17, 1996
  • Washington Post's Cybersurfing column, October 31, 1996
  • Indianapolis Star-News's Plugged-in Politics column, January 28, 1997
  • Sun Newspapers (Cleveland/Akron area, Ohio), October 19, 2000
  • The Hill Times (Canada's Parliamentary Newspaper) GoverNet column, August 18, 1997
  • Syracuse Post-Standard's Roadside Attractions column, September 19, 1997
  • Morris Thompson's column in the Philadelphia Daily News, October 6, 1997
  • Fritz Wenzel's column in the Toledo Blade, October 27, 1997
  • Mic Barnette's column in the Houston Chronicle, March 1998
  • USA Today's Hot Sites, on May 2-4, 1997 and November 14, 2000
  • Canton Repository (Canton, Ohio), on January 20, 2000
  • Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, December 14, 1997.
Magazines
  • The Economist, February 16, 2006
  • Parade Magazine (Sunday supplement in many newspapers), in Walter Scott's Personality Parade, January 27, 2002
  • Brill's Content, in the "Stuff We Like" section, November 1999
  • Internet World's Surfboard column, May 1997
  • Family Tree Magazine, April 2000
  • National Journal's Infofile column, May 31, 1997; also in "Political Web Sites," December 10, 2001.
  • Knight Templar, February 2002.
  • America West's "This & That" column, February 1998.
Online publications:
  • Newsbytes, April 30, 1997, November 13, 2000.
  • Computer Times, December 2000
  • Slate, in Jacob Weisberg's column, January 22, 1998 and March 13, 2001
  • The American Cynic, in its Web Site of the Week series
  • Clearwater Bar Association Newsletter "Travels in Cyberspace" column, February 1998
  • Alamo PC's Net Nerds column, November 1996
  • Earthlink's Daily bLink column, November 25, 1996
  • New Mexico State Library's Hitchhiker newsletter, June 30, 1997
  • Mr. Media, October 20, 1997
  • Internet News, June 6, 1997
  • From The Creek Bed, May 15, 1998
  • World Net Daily, in Judy Lowe's column, April 5, 1999
  • Fark.com, on December 31, 2000
  • Clicks Today, August 29, 2000.
Since I have not done a site-wide update since 2015, and since there are so many other resources online these days, traffic and notice have gone down considerably.
But back in the 1996-2005 era, it was unique. For years, my site was the only online resource that listed (let alone profiled) the 12,000-plus people who have served in the U.S. Congress and Continental Congress since 1774, the only place that listed all past U.S. state governors, etc.
Further, throughout that time and later, the site was ranked highly by Alexa and other traffic measurement sources. Google Adsense [as an indication of magnitude, not a Wikipedia-usable source] tells me it has gotten more than 50 million page views from 2003 to date.
I do not claim, and have never claimed, that my site is a Wikipedia Reliable Source, and in my 2,000-some edits to Wikipedia, mostly to biographical articles, I have never cited my own site as a source.
That said, I would dispute the claim above that the site is "not particularly reliable". I don't claim it to be error-free, and I certainly don't claim it to be complete, but I have spent years going through primary sources to collect data. I have researched and curated every one of the longer profiles, compared the evidence from different sources as to conflicting information, and presented the best available conclusion.
Many of the recognized official biography sites, especially including the official Congressional site and the National Governors Association site, are rife with errors, and I have corrected hundreds of them.
No one besides me, as far as I am aware, has ever attempted to compile all of the delegates and alternate delegates to all of the U.S. major-party national conventions. The site currently has approximately 120,000 delegates listed (counting each delegate at each convention), which is slightly over half of the estimated 230,000 total. The lists of delegates in the published Proceedings of national party conventions, are a problematic source, compiled in haste and not reviewed by the body, so I have done considerable work in original sources, deciphering name variations and duplications.
Some of the things I have learned from researching political figures have resulted in articles for Wikipedia, for example: Byron R. Newton, Samuel M. Vauclain, Donald Barr Chidsey, Wythe Leigh Kinsolving, Francis M. Taitt, W. Langdon Kihn. To repeat, I never used Political Graveyard as a source for Wikipedia; all these biographical articles are supported by published reliable sources. I mention them to give an idea of the amount of care I take with research. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if you identified which of the WP:RS you list above have WP:INDEPTH or other significant coverage, and brought them here to the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kestenbaum, I agree with E.M.Gregory that you ought to. Plus, title and weblink, if you have it, would help.XavierItzm (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that you mention the conflict of interest and that the visitor numbers have dropped etc but this doesn't half sound like an attempt to have the thing kept here. You also have a half-cock BLP article to go with this half-cock website article. Both have been around for years, both have been poorly sourced in all of that time. There is nothing in WP:COI that would have prevented you from mentioning these issues on the respective talk pages.

    Yes, there probably are old offline sources such as the ones you mention but the majority of those seem very obscure to me and you suggest that at least some of them are passing mentions. Has anyone in recent years held up your site as, for example, a precursor of the more modern resources to which you refer? I'm actually astonished that so many sources that you seem to consider to be reputable even bothered referring to something that seems essentially to have been a labour of love by someone who was totally unqualified and doing their own research unless, of course, that is precisely the reason they mentioned it, almost like a "look at this crank" mention. Again, no offence intended but I've been reading stuff about - and designing - websites since before yours existed & I can well remember what used to pass (sic) as a mention and what they used to say of mine. We need more info on those sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) You're right that (as discontented as I was with the articles about the web site and me) that I should have commented on the sourcing, but it struck me as unseemly to take too much interest in articles concerning myself.

    (2) If notability is not transient, the fact that the web site has faded in importance since the first decade of its existence does not cancel out its earlier significance; I would think it would deserve an article even if it had gone offline. Indeed, most of the notable sites from that era are defunct now.

    (3) As to sources, the New York Times and the Economist (among others) are hardly obscure, and some of them go on at length. Are you suggesting that I go find those texts and post them here?

    (4) I don't believe that I am "totally unqualified", but I'm not sure what you would accept as qualification. Kestenbaum (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I wasn't debating transience but rather the possibility of passing mentions etc, which were common back in the 1990s and early 2000s. If the NYT and The Economist dealt with it in depth then that would do for me, although I remain surprised because I thought they would be better than that - just shows how standards have changed, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All questions of its current status aside, I agree that this website was notable, distinctive and frequently cited in earlier years, mentioned as such in sources like the ones cited by E.M. Gregory above. To remove the content of this article would be a significant loss for researchers and others who seek clarification about the references they come across in their labors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is major coverage justifying the article. To cite one example out of dozens, the NYT times article Hitting a Self-Destruct Button is 964 words. Of these, 275 words are an interview with the creator of The Political Graveyard (TPG) and extracts from his website.[1] Dude, that's the NYT relying on TPG for 29% of the article! If the NYT covering something like this is not WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, then I don't know what is. XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people in AfDs need to be aware that not everyone can see what they can see. This applies particularly to US news websites and Google Books. Nominations can be made in good faith, WP:BEFORE can have been done and still stuff gets missed. That's one of the points of the discussion process. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending, leaning Keep - the sources provided indicate some hopefulness towards demonstrating notability, (it should be noted in the NYT article above, that only a small amount is an exact interview extract - the rest are bits of and about the website). Hopefully some web links for a few of those sources can be found if they've been digitalised.
While no doubt Kestenbaum does want to preserve the article (he never said otherwise, and why else would he be here) their presence seems beneficial, and some of the comments by Sitush seem cruel, without redeeming value, if nothing else. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate your concern for my feelings, and obviously I disagree with the criticism, but I presume those comments were an honest expression of opinion, and I prefer to assume good faith. Kestenbaum (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Means not a lot in the context of this discussion - sources have to discuss the thing itself in depth, not just reference it. FWIW, even the creator says it has a lot of errors, as did someone who produced specific examples at the recent WP:RSN discussion that determined it was not in fact reliable from a Wikipedia perspective. Nonetheless, I switched to keep many hours ago based on what the creator told me above (and, no, I didn't need to see the evidence personally). - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and I see you have switched your !vote to a Keep. But here is how I see this: WP:N is established because of the many news reports explaining, mentioning or citing The Political Graveyard for decades. But then there is a whole other dimension to a Wikipedia entry that has little to do with WP:NN, which is, well, if people have relied on someone else's work, don't we get to at least say it? So, for example, if you go to the Thomas Aquinas Wiki entry, there is a whole section, five paragraphs long, containing the recent people whom he influenced (and which, surely cited him!), and it discusses and lists Umberto Eco, James Joyce, Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre, Elizabeth Anscombe, Walter Freeman, and Henry Adams. So analogously, I am inclined to think that at least some of the many books, some of which are scholarly (like the one from Duke University Press), and at least some of the press articles that actually cite The Political Graveyard as a source should count to establish the bonafides of the website here on AfD and should be included on the article to provide context to readers. XavierItzm (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Very occasionally there might be justification for it, which is most commonly found in science-based topics. This is not one of those rare occasions. The article is going to be kept based on the basic GNG requirements, ie: in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If we start listing works that cite works in articles then they will be full of unwieldy trivia and in many cases would grow to a ridiculous length for no obvious gain. Notability does not usually require it. And I switched before you even commented here. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivia to cite examples of works or people who have relied on a body of work. Hence it is quite valid to cite some of the scholarly books and newspapers that have sourced from the Graveyard site. Hence as well the cited example of Aquinas' entry on his impact on people from the last century or so. Furthermore, it is erroneous to write that only on scientists' Wiki entries this is done. So for example the Wiki entry on Ovid, 8,055 words long, dedicates 1,730 words, i.e., 21%, to listing dozens of people influenced by his body of work, and works which cite Ovid. For example, the article cites a "post-rock song" written in 2012, and based on Ovid's work. XavierItzm (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ MARK LEIBOVICH (1 October 2006). "Hitting a Self-Destruct Button". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2018. "You always seem to have politicians doing bizarrely self-destructive things, especially involving sex," says Lawrence Kestenbaum, creator of "Political Graveyard," a history Web site that includes an exhaustive cataloging of transgressions by politicians. Under the heading "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace," the section contains 420 entries, in chronological order, many of them involving present and former members of Congress. Among the escapades: • Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, was reprimanded when it was revealed that a male lover had been running a prostitution business out of his Capitol Hill apartment. • Donald (Buz) Lukens, Republican of Ohio, who was convicted of a misdemeanor for having sex with a 16-year-old girl. • Dan Crane, Republican of Illinois, and Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, both of whom were censured by the House for having sexual relations with teenage pages — Mr. Crane with a female in 1980, Mr. Studds with a male in 1973. The "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace" section comes with the devastatingly simple disclaimer "Very Incomplete!" Mr. Kestenbaum says improprieties in the political realm tend to resonate more than in others. First, they tend to become public, necessitating apologies and, in many cases, resignations. He points out that if Mr. Foley were a purchasing manager at some store, he might actually keep his job. "The political world tends to be very judgmental," Mr. Kestenbaum says. This creates towering spectacles of dishonesty, famous last words that are often caught on tape. Mr. Clinton created the gold standard for this when he looked into a camera and indignantly declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
  2. ^ Robert A. Hill (ed.). The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Volume XI: The Caribbean Diaspora, 1910–1920. Duke University Press. p. 390. ISBN 0822346907. Retrieved 12 June 2018. www.politicalgraveyard.com, 29 March 2005
  • KeepImportant reference website, much used in Wikipedia and alsoin scholarship and popular books. It is paticularly improtant that we keep articles on sources widely used in WP so people can find aout whatthey are andjudgethe reliability. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- as per discovery of new sources. It looks like it got quite a bit of press in the early days of the internet. However, the consensus is clear that this website is not a reliable source and should never be used as a wikipedia reference (even though it has in the past). See: [1]--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Political_Graveyard&oldid=1255438722"