Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:45, 29 September 2014 view sourceAndyvphil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,372 edits →Thefederalist.com← Previous edit Revision as of 02:20, 29 September 2014 view source Viriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,725 edits reNext edit →
Line 310: Line 310:
:::::: Two examples of what kind of coverage we need for an article on a web magazine or political website: Some examples: ], ] - ] ] 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) :::::: Two examples of what kind of coverage we need for an article on a web magazine or political website: Some examples: ], ] - ] ] 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Sufficient independent sources exist per links above. Article needs to be improved. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - Sufficient independent sources exist per links above. Article needs to be improved. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Strongest delete possible in the history of deletes'''. There is no significant secondary source coverage about this topic in ''any'' independent, reliable source. Instead, we find the weakest sources possible, the majority consisting of self-references, passing coverage in unreliable sources, and self-references to Misplaced Pages and this AfD. There is nothing to talk about in a proposed article more than stub length, therefore it should be deleted. I should also like to point out that the discussion up above and it's associated attack on Tyson are a great example of yet-another Heartland-sponsored ] that the Koch-funded, conservative noise machine engages in on a daily basis. These warriors for ignorance are the equivalent of intellectual terrorists, whose values and moral system of beliefs is indistinguishable from the anti-science and anti-human values of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They should be loudly opposed at every available opportunity, night and day, wherever and whenever these conservative champions of darkness crawl out from under their slimy rock. ] (]) 02:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:20, 29 September 2014

Thefederalist.com

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
Thefederalist.com (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 WP:WEBCRIT - Website launched September 2013. Passing mentions and trivial coverage in a number of articles, does not meet the criteria established for web notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Its inception in September 2013 is irrelevant to noteworthiness.) FChE (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
of course there arent secondary sources demonstrating notability ... they were all removed. WeldNeck (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Passing mentions are not appropriate sources. The Politico article linked below is a nice start, but that on its own is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Weak keep (see below) I was unable to find any mention of this paper other than brief passing references to two of its articles by Fox News and Salon. While it generates a lot of hits on Google they are almost all primary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While most of the sources below are no good, this one by Politico constitutes independent in-depth coverage:, and together with a multitude of passing mentions probably qualifies it as notable. I'm concerned that there are few good sources and that these are not used at all in the article, but that's reason to improve it and I'd rather err on the side of not deleting articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had more luck finding sources with the search terms "federalist" plus either "Harsanyi" or "Hemingway" (two senior editors), but everything is a passing mention of opinions published by The Federalist rather than a discussion of the website itself. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of sources, but don't be surprised if that changes really soon. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable sources of The Federalist's legitimacy and notability as an online magazine for conservative news includes The New York Times, Huffington Post, Washington Examiner, Slate.com, Salon.com, Physics Today, Politico, The Daily Beast, Forbes, Weekly Standard, and many more. The criticism that a web search for the keywords "Federalist" and "Harsanyi" returned published articles rather than discussions of the website itself is a false argument; one that can similarly be made about any news outlet. mlcorcoran 26 September 2014

— mlcorcoran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that this editors actual rationale is to, quote "stand up to the Wiki-Activists trying to censor The Federalist.", and is basically a rehash of the claim that the blogger at the federalist made: , Second Quantization (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Second Quantization: Please note that personal attacks and comments on other users, rather than the content itself, is considered disruptive and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.
  • @Mlcorcoran: These sources are marginal at best in my estimation. The first two are lists of David Harsanyi's writings, which establishes the notability of David Harsanyi but not the place where he works, and the last two only mention The Federalist once each in passing. The third one, from Physics Today, discusses conservative political criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson and mentions The Federalist a few times, but I think it would be hard to argue that this constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Specifically, none of these sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sammy1339: The Federalist is one of a number of new and important online media outlets representing journalism and editorials from conservative writers. The phenomenon of new conservative media outlets (including the Washington Free Beacon, Rare.us, and The Federalist) featuring professional journalism, rather than mere blogging and opinions (such as Red State and HotAir.com) has certainly been covered in several places (is one example of early coverage). If I were !voting (which I'm not because although I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages for several years, I wouldn't begin to claim I understand its convoluted self-regulation process), I would vote to Strongly Keep, because the Federalist is an important piece of a larger phenomenon in which newer online media outlets are disrupting traditional outlets, in the same manner as Vox and FiveThirtyEight are with journalism and editorials from liberal writers. xLittleP (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @XLittleP: Thank you for expressing your concerns. The problem here is that we are not judging the merit of the website one way or another, we are only trying to figure out if there exist enough secondary sources on it - which means sources that discuss the website itself, specifically, and in depth, not that merely make reference to its publications or contributors - to write a properly-cited encyclopedia article. We don't seem to have many such sources, and the few sources we have (Politico, Media Matters, and arguably Physics Today and the Washington Post) come from the Left and are highly critical of The Federalist. I think this meets the threshold for notability (barely, and I tend to be very generous) but it will be hard to write a balanced article that cites only those sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sammy1339: Your questioning of mlcorcoran's statement that The Federalist was noted by the sources listed was a VERY serious one. Misplaced Pages requires that such challenges be made in good faith. Please outline, in detail, the efforts you undertook to determine that The Federalist was not noted by those sources. Please keep in mind that a statement to the effect that "I was just asking for links" will NOT be acceptable. You have undertaken the burden of justifying deletion, and it is your obligation to do adequate research to insure your demand is well-founded.
  • Let's not assume bad faith in either direction. The request seemed perfectly civil to me. M said "the site has been referred to by <notable websites>, S said "thanks, can you share any links of examples?", M said "yes, here are many links". I don't think anyone needs to take offense about that. -- Narsil (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's not. My perfectly civil request was for for Sammy1339 to outline, in detail, what steps were taken to ascertain that The Federalist was not cited by those sources. I can't possibly determine the question of good faith or bad faith until that question is answered. I don't think anyone needs to take offense at that.
  • @GaiaHugger: I was just asking for links. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

  • @Sammy1339: Please outline, in detail, the efforts you undertook to determine that The Federalist was not noted by those sources. Thank you.
Your well-thought reason for !voting keep being? Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there's been enough talk of it to satisfy WEBCRIT, it's just hard to find because the name isn't unusual enough to stand out from the more famous work from 1788. Media Matters saw fit to write about them back in April . Politico wrote about them, as well, back in January. Physics Today wrote last week about their current imbroglio with Neil Tyson . More are bound to follow on that point. And that's just what I found in a few minutes of searching. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are an original news and analysis site. The question isn't whether they have received mentions and coverage, it is whether their work has been cited in other publications of established reliability. The editors above have more than demonstrated that is the case. Also, I try seriously to Assume Good Faith around here, but the timing of this is more than suspicious. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, whether they have received coverage 'is' the question, because that coverage will be the sources needed to write the article. Without those sources, Misplaced Pages cannot have an article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to know that as well. You can't just raise your hand and shout "me!", this isn't kindergarten. Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It has a number of well-known writers and is often referred to by external sources, as per WP:WEBCRIT. (For example, its cheerfully trollish vendetta against noted former scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been linked to by, among others, a blog at the Washington Post: Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?) The argument against keeping the page seems to be "Sure, people may link to its articles and talk about the articles, but they aren't talking about the website, just the articles on it"--I just can't see that that's reasonable. Delete the page and it's going to look like a childish tantrum by Misplaced Pages. Narsil (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Barely makes it over the hump. I see a lot of passing references to the subject, none of which matters per WP:WEB. I see non-trivial coverage by just two sources, Media Matters and Physics Today. Kudos to Coemgenus for finding those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep being mentioned in RS sources for material published therein is key here - the removal of all such sources prior to listing at AfD may well have been improper. NYT, NYT etc. show it is notable enough for the New York Times. WaPo. WaPo. etc. (many earlier behind paywall). Any website mentioned by both the NYT and WaPo meets the GNG, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you checked these sources? Does not look like you did. I moved them to Talk:Thefederalist.com#Notability because the sources did not pan out. These are brief mentions which do not attest to notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I most certainly did read what I cited, and I would point out that arguing with editors at an AfD generally is nugatory in value, and often results in others noting that fact. RS sources citing opinions from a website are, in fact, not "passing mentions". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This debate, and the timing, would be deeply embarrassing to any legitimate encyclopedia, and is only here because the wikipedia fosters a culture of semi-anonymity that removes individual accountability. If anyone left here remembers me, this is why I left in the first place. Thatcher 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Left what? You are here aren't you? While we are at it, please present your policy-based reason for your vote. Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that an admin would violate AGF like this after a 9-month wikibreak is deeply disturbing to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Because the coverage was trivial, and one of the sources did not even mentioned the website. Check for yourself Talk:Thefederalist.com#Notability - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You may need to reacquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "trivial". A passing mention is often trivial - a suggestion to read a site, coupled with a synopsis of a recommended reading article is more than "trivial".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Not enough, in my opinion, and I spent time looking for sources and validating the ones were there. Not notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Never enough in your opinion. Why are you bringing Misplaced Pages into a disrepute? Your "opinion" is not and was not grounds for deletion of an article. You could easily have initiated a discussion on the talk page but you did not do that. So all the evidence points you lashing out in politically motivated vengeance after someone added the Degrasse Tyson controversy into the article. The timeline is very clear on what happened. You then jumped the gun and led the charge to delete the article without any discussion which in my opinion is proof of bad faith editing if done by an non rookie editor who has an interest in the topic or subject matter related to the article. —Loginnigol (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The incessant whining and personal attacks against WP volunteers by the site’s co-founder makes it look like a personal blog with an ax to grind IMHO. But, I’ll hold off on voting until I see more rational !votes as opposed to votes without WP policy rationales or links to back up claims. Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep.Work by authors at The Federalist have also been at the core of articles at The Daily Beast and The Washington Post . These are not just passing mentions so that would seem to cover most of the requirements of notability, but there are more if that doesn't suffice: Washington Post "In an interview published online on Wednesday, Paul said The Post’s story was “full of inaccuracies,” calling it a “hit job." again The Federalist forms a core part of the story. Slate, "Paul, meanwhile, can convince his audience of the moment that he has never been inconsistent, and never been duped. He responded to the lengthy Washington Post exegesis in a friendly conversation with the Federalist, a year-old conservative news site. He was not asked to respond to any point-by-point questions about his plan. “Do you believe you’ve changed your mind about the proper policy approach in this arena,” asked his interviewer, “or is this just a matter of people not making a distinction about the threats involved?” . There are quite a few others but these show 2nd party sources referencing The Federalist, again pointing to notability. In short I think the request for deletion should be denied — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshkuru (talk • contribs)

— Cshkuru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html
  2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/
  3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/17/gop-whip-supports-obama-plan-with-reservations-at-leasthes-taking-a-first-step/
  4. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/rand_paul_s_foreign_policy_contradictions_the_kentucky_republican_explains.html
  • Keep On the grounds that I keep running into this danged site and references to it on not-Misplaced Pages, which is more than I can say for most of the pages in the "American political websites" category (I'm admittedly an inclusionist almost to a fault, but I can't think of a rationale that chucks this article but keeps, say, BlueNC.) Also, I'm sick of running into "look how biased Misplaced Pages is" articles and having to defend the site to people who only know about Misplaced Pages thanks to vandalism and controversial deletions (which is most of the adults I know.) Lloannna (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban nominator for pointy, tendentious abuse of process. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I do not support banning. Everyone makes mistakes, and this doesn't rise to that level.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your last edit was April 2013, and then this !vote? Have you been canvassed? And you have the chutzpah to ask for banning me? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick What? Are you implying that some other admin could have rightly banned Cwobeel for making the "mistake" of nominating this article for deletion but not you because you "do not support banning"? Are you for real or was that said in jest? Gaba 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Publisher Ben Domenech co-founded Red State blog (listed in the handful of notable US blogs in Misplaced Pages's "Political Blogs" page ) and is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute. Senior Editor David Harsanyi has been published in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, New York Post with TV appearances Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, NBC. Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway has written articles for Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN and National Review. Based on the existence of numerous Wiki pages for sites and publications without similarly credentialed contributors, I see no objective basis for claiming the site lacks notoriety. Its removal would suggest bias unless scores of less notable publications were likewise removed. Misplaced Pages should err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion, particularly for a largely subjective criteria such as notoriety. These contributors' works are respected by and reflect and influence the views of millions of U.S. citizens on "the Right" and cannot be honestly characterized as marginal or fringe.Calawpro (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

— Calawpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article in discussion is not Ben Domenech, so I don't see how your argument helps here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Political_blog
  • Keep It seems to me that this page is being deleted for political reasons, not for the reasons stated by OP. That smacks of elitism and/or censorship.rvail136 (User talk:rvail136|talk]] 00:12 27 September 2014 (UTC)

— Rvail136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What about WP:AGF, and providing a rationale for keeping the article based on our policies? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If co-founders are notable, you can include info on their blog or website on their bios. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • weak keep While there is a dearth of sources discussing them directly, they are being cited and quoted widely, (admittedly often in a negative spin). There are numerous analogues in our notability guidelines WP:NJournals, WP:NACADEMICS and others have being cited and alluded to as evidence of notability, and I think its reasonable to apply here as well. (Although without sources directly discussing them, the article will need to remain a stub for WP:V reasons) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find it very interesting that we have more than ten (10) different editors, all of whom happen to have voted the same way, who all came here immediately after extended wikibreaks (or in one case, with their very first edit). Do I detect some meatpuppetry or stealth canvassing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, the usual shenanigans. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the OP claims to be on a wikibreak as well. (or claimed to be, until 5 minutes before responding to this observation)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Should this AfD nomination be challenged because it was made by an editor on Wikibreak? (My opinion: No).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to remove the tag a few days ago. So what? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
S, are you being serious or snarky? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Just smiling at the juxtaposition. An editor with a Wikibreak template on their page expresses concern about votes from editors recently on Wikibreak. A self-proclaimed member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians proposes an article for AfD. It shouldn't affect the outcome in any way, but it is funny.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of your comment? Many of these editors haven't edited in years and magically returned after this. Clearly they have been canvassed. I don't see how any rational person could deny that. Cwobeel has been active for the last 9 months straight . Your argument is entirely incoherent, Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I find it equally fascinating that edits are being excluded from Neil deGrasse Tyson based on the argument that The Federalist is not a notable source. Soon thereafter, The Federalist is nominated for deletion on that basis. I am sure, though, that no one would then turn around and use deletion as a basis to further discredit it as a source for Neil deGrasse Tyson and other articles.--MikeJ9919 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the relevance of that to this discussion, but I hope you're not suggesting it justifies meatpuppetry or off-wiki recruitment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevance is that the nominator may have an ulterior motive for the nomination, which editors should know. That does not justify meatpuppetry or canvassing that is contrary to policy, which (at least in my case) did not happen here.--MikeJ9919 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:AGF, please. I came across this page and found it to be not notable. My ulterior motives, if any, is to keep Misplaced Pages clean of fluff. - Cwobeel (talk)
Are you willing to share how you came upon this discussion after a 2 month break, perhaps shed some light on what's going on? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As was mentioned by an editor below, this discussion has been noted by The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and others. I came across it in my normal news sweep. So far as I know, there has been no attempt made to recruit editors to to come here. But on those heavily trafficked sites, lots of editors will run across it and decide to join the discussion.--MikeJ9919 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Same way I ended up here saw it mentioned in my RSS feed. I haven't edited anything in quite a while, but I came across a mention of this, read the notability discussion on thefederalist.com page decided I disagreed with Cwobeel's reasoning and posted a response. I tried to base my arguments on my whats laid out in the notability guidelines. If that's meatpuppetry or canvassing then I guess all I can do is apologize. Now out of curiosity how does one prove notability for a site like this? It seem like a catch 22. If you say X-author wrote this article for the federalist and it was quoted in Y-place the response is that either it was justa passing mention or that maybe the author is notable but that doesn't mean the site is. By the standards that are being imposed I don't see how any site can qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshkuru (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CommuterHell (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

@CommuterHell: You have to explain how it meets the notability guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you are the one who flagged me as possibly being canvassed, I'll point you to the note at the top to assume good faith in the discussion. I felt it proper to vote and trust me I've been involved in some notability discussions before offline that went quite in depth related to the other account I had for an employer. I understand the differences between being mentioned vs. being notable in your own right and the differences in the two in the guidelines. CommuterHell (talk)
@CommuterHell: No, it was not me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the false assumption then. I just want to make it clear I was not canvassed for this vote and I hope my good faith effort at discussion here instead of just voting and disappearing helps prove that. CommuterHell (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who included you in a list of possibly canvassed editors. Participating after being canvassed isn't necessarily acting in bad faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a false assertion. I was not canvassed. I honestly think The Federalist gets it wrong on some of the things they have written on this, and other sites have in the past as well but I'm a legitimate keep vote on this. CommuterHell (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not accusing you specifically of being canvassed. I'm saying it's extremely likely that canvassing/meat is going on by someone. You might have randomly appeared at the wrong time for all I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether the site "gets it wrong on some of the things" is irrelevant. We are not discussing whether it qualifies as a reliable source but whether it meets general notability guidelines. You don't have to like it, believe it, or agree with it, you just need to decide if it's important/notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was precisely CommuterHell's point—to clarify that it isn't simply the case that they like the content, which would not be much support for notability, but to clarify that the position is something other than "I like it".--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Of course I didn't say make that assertion but thanks for putting words in my mouth - I was remarking that I was aware of the controversy they had stirred up in their coverage of this discussion and that I found them to be wrong on more than one point in their coverage of Misplaced Pages in that regard. I was pointing out I was aware of the controversy but that I voted keep because I believe they meet the notability standards. CommuterHell (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could someone please list the "criteria established for web notability" or tell me where I can find it so that I can compare the criteria to The Federalist website? mkstokes (User talk:mkstokes|talk]]

— Mkstokes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The guideline WP:N, of which WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT are subsets, has only one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  IMO, the key to understanding WP:N's notability concept is found in the nutshell.  Topic's require evidence of having attracted sufficiently significant attention of the world-at-large over a period of time.  There is also one relevant sentence in the policy WP:V#Notability, which states,
“ If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. ”
Info from WP:V's nutshell adds, "Readers must be able to check that Misplaced Pages articles are not just made up."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Domenech is relevant to the notoriety of the publication. The fact that he's recognized as a founder of a Wiki-recognized significant political blog speaks to the issue you raised. Misstating the context of my evidence doesn't help convince me your criticism is valid. Dr. Fleischman and yourself would do better to confine yourselves to the argument at hand rather than ad homming the messengers. Calawpro (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Canvassing/meat/votestacking/etc. are highly relevant to the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I changed my vote to "weak keep" I'm concerned that in spite of the large number of insignificant mentions in links provided above the only sources which can plausibly be construed as meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirements are a thoroughly negative Politico article and a couple articles from Physics Today and the Washington Post concerning The Federalist's criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson. I worry that it will be impossible to write an article based on that which doesn't violate WP:NPOV standards. I think that keeping the article is really a stretch but I support doing so in the hope that other useful sources will turn up. Obviously I'm also concerned about the apparent foul play, but that doesn't affect my opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • comment on meatpuppetry I think this isn't so much canvassing and meatpuppetry, as the media site mentioning the discussion. Of course that serves as a type of canvassing, but only in so far as any mention of a wikipedia article or discussion in any media venue is. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Link please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That could certainly do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oy. I wouldn't say that "isn't so much canvassing...", I'd say it's canvassing on an exceptionally large scale. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the same as a neutral independent source mentioning the AfD. It's the topic of the article itself canvassing for a keep. They even explicitly defend their notability although they clearly don't have a clue about what our actual requirements are, Second Quantization (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a circular argument; it's notable because its notable, Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jmdoman: The first few are all primary, the HuffPo one is a passing mention, and the Salon one is a collection of articles and I haven't gone through them all but they seem like passing mentions too. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The site gets around, and seems to be gaining traction. No problems with the article that I can see. A brief perusal of the category (American Political Websites) shows that there are a great number of lesser known sites that have articles.Woden325 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Where does it stop Misplaced Pages? Your actions are obviously political in nature and not at all independent. You claim to be tolerant and fair with postings and submittals but, like other progressives, you only tolerate other opinions when they agree with yours. Let the discussion fly. You, and your readers, might learn something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranclThomas (talk • contribs)

— FranclThomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmm. All progresives are intolerant. Guess you're not. (Isn't irony ironic?):) Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: For all the reasons stated above. This is an on-line publication that is run and contributed to by respected people in the DC area that has been sourced in or rebutted by in respected publications (indeed, why would publications like Salon bother to respond to a non-noteworthy publication?). Its another in a patchwork of on-line magazines, news aggregation websites, and blogs that focus on politics and culture. At any rate, if this is the narrow standard demanded by Misplaced Pages's content gatekeepers, then let's start looking at the pages of left-leaning on-line publications, like Think Progress.QJX (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that QJX (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Your argument is irrelevant to our notability requirements. Read our actual notability requirements WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No. No one has sent me any emails, texts, etc., asking me to comment. I read both Misplaced Pages and the Federalist. I do, however, suspect that you yourself have been canvassed -- or at least you're biased and an unreliable arbiter in this as you have had a heavy footprint reverting edits in the Tyson page. But on to my substantive point, it is entirely relevant as a finding that The Federalist is non-notable would call into question whether many web magazines and websites, including left-leaning ones, meet the notability requirement. I brought up the example of Think Progress, a site that is picked up in many left-leaning blogs. I would challenge anyone to look at that page and tell me why Think Progress meets the notability requirement, but The Federalist does not. At any rate, I see from the latest news that Tyson has been forced to respond to criticism from The Federalist that he botched the Bush quote, which story has been picked up in The Washington Post. . Clearly that, now, should settle the argument in favor of keeping the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QJX (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/neil-degrasse-tyson-admits-he-botched-bush-quote/
  • Question: What would satisfy the editors in regards to notability. I linked to 4 articles 2 in the Washington Post, one in Slate and on on the Daily Beast in which content presented in The Federalist is core to the story. Granted two are on the Neil DeGrasse Tyson controversy but still it is a story that has been mentioned. The other two are interviews with Rand Paul addressing foreign policy issues. The interviews were then themselves covered by other major publications (and I think both washington Post and Slate meet the reliable source requirement). Others have provide multiple other links, all of which are being dismissed as trivial. So again, what is the standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XLittleP (talk • contribs)
You misunderstand our notability requirements because you are using rehashed arguments from the federalist. Our actual notability requirements are that you need independent secondary sourcing which discuss the topic in detail WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Mentions by other newspaper do not count towards notability, rather significant coverage is what matters, Second Quantization (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I did. Slate and the Washington Post discussing the foreign policy of a US Senator and potential Presidential candidate as outlined in an interview on the site in question doesn't count as non-trivial or signifigant? The Washington Post and the Daily Beast discussing a controversy created by the site in question don't count as non-trivial? What does then? here are two more articles then from a political blog that has already survived a notability vote and is a major award winner and while I know that notability can't be inherited if a notable publication is using you as a basis for creating content that should go towards indicating notability in each of them The Federalist is mentioned as the source and then a lengthy analysis is presented. Does that meet the requirements? I know it's a stacked deck at this point, but you guys have made me a little mad with obvious predetermined outcome. Cshkuru (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Slate and the Washington Post discussing the foreign policy of a US Senator and potential Presidential candidate as outlined in an interview on the site in question doesn't count as non-trivial or signifigant?" It indicates the notability of the senataor and the presidential candidate but says nothing about the notability of the federalist, which depends on significant coverage by reliable sources. No, "Ace of Spades HQ" is not a reliable source so it is irrelevant. Read our requirements which you have been linked to, Second Quantization (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point regarding this process. I actually did read the guidelines before I posted my initial comment this morning and you know what it seems to me that the guidelines say that being quoted by a newspaper does count towards notability -"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." I have provide four instances of work at The Federalist attracting independent non-trivial works (entire articles based around content that the federalist initially published) which is what your guidelines require. Others have provided additional instances.Cshkuru (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
" what it seems to me that the guidelines say that being quoted by a newspaper does count towards notability " You can think that but you are wrong. The closing administrator will be aware of the actual guidelines and will simply discount your argument. The criteria of significant coverage is quite clear that it must discuss the source in significant detail, not merely mention, cite or quote it. This is standard policy which I have linked to elsewhere in the discussion, Second Quantization (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Keep: This is a popular on-line publication. This is clearly not about notability, but about POV. This may be a success for those who wish to dictate POV on Misplaced Pages, but the credibility of Misplaced Pages will continue to erode by these efforts.Billollib (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Billollib (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Read our notability criteria WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT. Second Quantization (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope. I deny the accusation of canvassing. But I'm not surprised it's made. In order to suppress the POV, one makes the accusation that it's not notable. People who find it notable respond, and one tries to suppress the opinion by claiming that noticing this is due to canvassing. Doh. But, really, here's the problem. The criteria for "notability" are squishy. They provide guidelines for the criteria, but not quantitation. Thus, for instance, does "multiple" independent sources mean two? Four? The bottom line is that if people want to pretend this is an objective evaluation, then there needs to be better standards. For instance, does publication in the Washington Examiner count (http://washingtonexaminer.com/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-acclaimed-conservative-site-the-federalist/article/2554032), or the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/)? If so, then the very act of trying to censor this article has made it "notable." And, of course, one could argue that Google recgonizes it as a news source (you can go to Google and find 241 articles in "news" from this site). So, it seems, the very act of making this attempt at censorship has in turn made the site "notable" had it not been so before.Billollib (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Expand it with what source? Second Quantization (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The only thing close to an actual argument is by Coemgenus. As far as I am aware, Media Matters is a partisan source, and thus is not generally reliable for establishing notability. Further, the other source, Physics today, only includes minor coverage, noting the existence of attacks and and links to the federalist. That is all. politico does not have an independent article devoted to the federalist, the article mentions the federalist but that is all. The requirement of WP:WEBCRIT is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This has not been achieved. Second Quantization (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as no different from any other conservative website, Fails WEBCRIT and GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known website within the commentary 'world'. Its frequent citations from notable and reputable media outlets gives it the notability for an article on Misplaced Pages. The site's nomination for deletion is possibly motivated by ideological bias. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It being "well-known" according to you isn't an argument for notability, nor is attacking the nom, nor is citations. What shows notability is WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The proposed deletion is obviously a matter of ideological opposition and as such without merit. I am not a Misplaced Pages contributor (yet) and just made an account today. I was not "canvassed." I read about this on Twitter and, as is my wont, felt compelled to put my .02 in. There's no question that TheFederalist.com is a well-known, widely cited (sometimes in admiration, sometimes in contempt, sometimes just for info) site. As others have noted, there are other political sites with Misplaced Pages entries that don't have near the reach or visibility of The Federalist.com. Deleting the entry will only provide more justification for those who say Misplaced Pages is ideologically slanted and therefore not an encyclopedia at all. There are a lot of political websites I won't dignify with a click--many of them are in Misplaced Pages, as they should be. I would never suggest their entries be deleted because that's not how an encyclopedia should work. (And please note: I am a Misplaced Pages supporter.) One last point: I don't understand the concern about "canvassing" - you say that input is welcome -- why does it matter how someone is induced to offer input? I do understand the concern about burner/sock puppet/multiple accounts but I'm commenting under my own name, with my own email, and I'm easily discoverable on Twitter and Facebook.KinseyHolley (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)KinseyHolley

— KinseyHolley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that KinseyHolley (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Sigh See above KinseyHolley (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)KinseyHolley

  • Keep Thefederalist.com has a substantial readership, and it's clearly notable, if for no other reason, because it has become the center of the controversy over Neil deGrasse Tyson's questionable quotes, which have been the subject of an extended controversy on Tyson's page. Deletion at this point would mean that there would be no reference to which discussion could be pointed within Misplaced Pages, as well as being (another) blow to Misplaced Pages's reputation for viewpoint neutrality. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chasrmartin (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

No argument for deletion is presented here. Arguments claiming that a subject is notable because it's discussed on wikipedia are inherently circular. Please look at our actual requirements: WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Since I said "keep" I don't think it's a surprise that no argument for deletion was posted above. The notion that saying it's not notable because it is needed to ground a discussion of a controversy is circular is nonsensical. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, I note that I've been tagged as having been "canvassed." This is an apparent violation of WP:GF. It also has an interesting effect, in that apparently if one becomes aware of a deletion controversy through the media, it's "being canvassed". On the other hand, if one isn't following each and every page on topics of interest, how would one become aware of a proposed deletion other than through some outside media reference. (Oddly, the last time I objected to a deletion of a so-called "conservative" page, I was accused of sock puppetry, even though I'd been an editor for many years.) One must begin to suspect a degree of WP:GAMING gaming the system to suppress opposing votes. It's unfortunately common for people to make the hidden assumption that their POV is the right POV, and thus dissent must be somehow grounded in bad faith. Merely being made aware of a controversy from an outside source is not an indication of bad faith, and the "canvassing" note is after all itself an assertion of bad faith. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It exceeds the minimum requirements for inclusion in that its mentions in the Daily Beast article, the Physics Today article, and the Media Matters article are more than trivial (as Misplaced Pages defines trivial). The scope of the information about the website itself is relatively minor, and I don't think there is enough out there to write more than a stub at this point, but it is not technically trivial in the sense of "newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Some of the coverage could be described as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", but the standard for notability here is really to weed out websites like your little brother's LiveJournal page. Ultimately, the site is notable because it is being treated as a serious and professional web magazine by well established news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and others, who have used members of Thefederalist.com as commentators for their own TV and print productions (the examples of this can be found in the citations of the article). AmateurEditor (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The mentions in physics today are trivial and short. Media Matters is unreliable. The daily beat merely says it's a conservative website, and that's about the only bit of information it gives about the website, Second Quantization (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, Media Matters may be considered as a reliable source. It certainly isn't unreliable just because it is partisan. The reliability of a source depends on the particulars of its use. I don't think what it is being cited for in the article is even controversial. Its attention on thefederalist.com is evidence of the site's notability. Again, being noted is obviously evidence of notability. How much is enough to exceed Misplaced Pages's definition of "trivial" is an area where reasonable people can disagree. I disagree with you that the mention in the Physics Today article is trivial. And I think the treatment of the site by the news organizations I mentioned is pretty clear evidence that they consider thefederalist.com to be a significant thing. There is no reason to exclude it from Misplaced Pages. Lets just make sure that everything has an appropriate citation. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This AFD is an obvious bit of axegrinding. The Federalist is a notable site--one I personally find loathsome, but notable nonetheless. It is ranked 42nd on Memeorandum's leaderboard (http://www.memeorandum.com/lb )--meaning it's more widely read and cited as a source currently than Mother Jones, MSNBC, Rolling Stone,the Economist and many other clearly notable brands. And the near-consensus on this page supports this---this is not only a bad AFD but a bad faith AFD. · rodii · 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't use these ranking sites to assess notability, but if you insist Alexa, does not even have a ranking for it . And memorandum only ranks "Lists the sources most frequently posted to memeorandum". Enough said. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's in Alexa. But, irrelevant as there are porn sites with higher ratings. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Instead of http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/federalist.com try http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thefederalist.com It's a top 5,000 site in the US. Andreas JN466 21:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep depending on complete rewrite and revisit Let us ignore the obvious canvassing for the moment. This article is almost one year old, and is a stub. This alone suggests non-notability. Notability arguments have been repeatedly exaggerated. There are no on-point refs in TV networks or major newspapers. The WaPo ref claims have been thoroughly debunked. Mentions in sites like HuffPo and other lesser known sites have only referred to the site’s examples of bad journalism. On notability, the primary criterion for an AfD, this site clearly fails. So, why would I !vote keep? It is my opinion that this site has absolutely no concept of journalistic standards, and will do whatever it can possibly do to become notable. I believe this because of its articles equating WP editors that are engaging in due-diligence, to jihadist beheaders, and comparing their efforts and opinions to the crucifixion of Christ. (Wow) And, the later out-of-context quotes ridiculing WP volunteers that see problems with the site’s reporting, and the naming of those individual volunteers for daring to express opinions, basically comparing them to jihadists beheaders. That is, they will do anything, it appears to me, to attain notability, and their efforts appear to be escalating, and becoming more egregioius, toward that end (my opinion). It’s not about WP. It’s the fact that they (he) would attack ANY group of volunteers, personally, with such hyperbole. Seriously, if you don’t think I’m notable, you are like someone that beheads people or crucified Christ? At least he avoided Godwin’s Law. So, I suggest that the article remain, for now, but be rewritten to honestly portray what the site is, what actual reliable resources say about the site, and how the site has reacted to criticism and dealt with even minor criticism from simple, unknowns only wishing to improve an encyclopedia. That is, if he wants to be notable; if he wants so badly to be in an encyclopedia, let an encyclopedia accurately depict the site. After a few months, we can see if he has succeeded in notability and reevaluate. I realize that this would take an enormous amount of time from WP editors and admins in the meantime as every tiny point is debated, appealed, and re-debated….. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
If the AFD is closed as keep, the article will indeed be developed further along the lines of what you expresed above; that is a given. As they say "be careful of what you wish for". - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"simple, unknowns only wishing to improve an encyclopedia" That's naive. See The arbitration case archives contain further copious evidence of how often Misplaced Pages is used as an ideological battlefield, and as a revenge platform. Do you really expect those at the receiving end to just take it lying down? Andreas JN466 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. How anyone who has followed the debate over at the Tyson talk page can for a second question it's includability here is stunning. The level of irony of having an alleged inclusionist nominate this for deletion is jaw-dropping. I've reached my limit. I'm out of here. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I am indeed an inclusionist (and proudly so). The material in that article can be easily merged into the The Federalist's founders articles where they belong. So, nothing will be lost. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing will be lost? How about the encyclopedia's reputation? The WP:WEBCRIT guidelines you cite as reason for removal of this article are just that: "guidelines" not policy. And present in those guidelines is text saying that the guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If ever there were a reason to apply "common sense" in applying guideline, this would be it. Furthermore, the purpose of the guideline is to make the encyclopedia better so that it is not filled with cruft. But this has not made the encyclopedia better. Your blithe appliacition of this guideline and it's astonishingly bad timing has instead caused significant damage to it's reputation. I am stunned that some other editors do not seem to either realize this or care about it and instead humor your reckless, damaging behavior. Marteau (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Marteau. I'm not an editor and so I'm not voting, but right now I'm laughing at Misplaced Pages. Great entertainment! Thanks, lads! svs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.49.31 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a frivolous nomination that should be closed. And Cwobeel should be barred from having anything to do with political articles for his blatant violation of WP:POINT to the detriment of the Wiki project. -- THF (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that THF (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

This sort of false disruptive accusation by Cwobeel is (1) precisely why I don't edit Misplaced Pages any more, because of abusive editors who treat the site as a MMORPG to push their political point of view, and (2) precisely why Cwobeel should be subject to a topic ban, since he cannot edit non-disruptively. No one canvassed me. I became aware that an abusive Misplaced Pages editor was acting in a manner to embarrass Misplaced Pages from press coverage, and I independently came to my own conclusion after looking at Cwobeel's POV-pushing editing history and Cwobeel's motives for the frivolous AFD. If Cwobeel would spend a tenth of the effort on improving the project instead of picking fights, he wouldn't be counterproductive. As it is, he wastes a lot of editors' time, and drives away productive editors like me who had tens of thousands of edits. THF (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
THF: where is your policy based reason for your !vote? "Frivolous" doesn't really say anything and simply !voting is meaningless. Gaba 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note: This was brought to my attention due to a conservative friend of mine asking what was up. Anyway, the current references are awful, but the article is also fully protected, so maybe there's more hiding somewhere? The only good secondary source that is on-point and not a trivial reference is the Politco article, and even that is a passing reference. A liberal blog with such patchy references would also certainly be in danger of deletion (or should be). That said considering the hullabaloo, there's clearly some sort of audience, so I wouldn't be averse to "please cleanup and add real references, then start another deletion debate in 6 months if the article has not improved." Let the closing editor make of this what they will. SnowFire (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – A lack of secondary sources on the page doesn't assert non-notability. It is only when there are are no secondary sources at all on Google and offline that it is non-notable. Additionally, existence for one year is not a criterion for deletion. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep—The following high 96% rating by Cool Media social-media website analyzer indicates a notably-strong following for TheFederalist.com on FaceBook and Twitter. To put it in perspective, 96% is the same rating that WikiQuote.org earned on Cool Media. — optikos (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me, what does Cool Media have to do with Misplaced Pages's notability criteria? If you want that site to determine notability, change the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now- This conversation has gotten a bit off topic. It appears the article has a stub level of notability as established by reliable sources. The discussion should be revisited in 6 months to see if notability is still so marginal and if so it should be merged. Also, I have nearly 40,000 edits on Misplaced Pages since 2006, so I don't want to hear anything about "canvassing". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Collect. On a side note I have to say this is a pretty stupid AfD. Whether some believe it to be or not, it looks patently vindictive. The timing is such that anyone seeing this will rightly believe that it is in response to the Neil deGrasse Tyson discussion, why would anyone believe otherwise? This article has existed for the better part of a year and only now because Sean Davis of The Federalist has pointed out inconsistencies with NGT's stories and specifically the claimed quote by GWB it has reached this point. Cwobeel would have been far better off to wait until after the NGT issue had died down before bringing up this AfD. Not only does it look like a response to that issue, by nominating this for deletion you got the obvious response from Davis, which was to write the article accusing WP of trying to go all Orwell on The Federalist and try to remove it from WP existence. In fact, if this article is deleted, you can guarantee that there will be barrels of internet ink written about would clearly looks like an attempt to remove this article because of what Davis wrote about NGT. I suggest this AfD be closed immediately as tainted. Furthermore, the claims of canvass are purely spurious, what did people expect? Every reader of The Federalist that is also a WP editor has likely come here to !Vote Keep without even being told to. This is currently a no-win situation for WP, and if anything this action has only increased the likelihood that others will give The Federalist more attention. Arzel (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
But the question is: does it meet the notability criteria or not? Tainted, not tainted, WP looking bad or good, the response of the website itself, the canvassing and SPAs, don't matter. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm here as a regular AfD participant who saw this explode on the Internet. First, if this was not notable before, it is now or soon will be. Second, looking at what has occurred so far here, it puts Misplaced Pages in a very bad light (regardless if everyone has acted in good faith), particularly given the fact that all but a little of the article and references were deleted by the nominator immediately prior to the nomination. True neutrality requires not only being neutral, but also at least making an effort to actually appear to be neutral. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The Federalist has been cited by numerous reliable secondary sources in articles which pre-date, and have nothing to do with the current controversy. They include the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, the Drudge Report, Slate, Daily Caller, Salon, Washington Examiner, Free Beacon, Vox, National Review, Weekly Standard, Forbes, Think Progress and The Blaze. The links are all provided in The Federalist's post discussing this controversy (please do not counter that the links should be disregarded because it is not a reliable source -- click on the links to verify their authenticity). I concur that cwobeel should be banned for this frivolous attempt at political censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiaHugger (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC) GaiaHugger (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep—appears to me to meet the General Notability Guideline. N2e (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I took the plunge and started doing some research to find sources. I ended empty handed. I also took a look at the sources provided by The Federalist website itself here , under the statement “Our work has been regularly featured by literally every single major publication, site, and cable news outlet in the U.S”.
    • The Washington Post , mentions an interview by The Federalist in a short sentence, and nothing else
    • The New York Times is a reference to Ben Domenech “whose web magazine, The Federalist, frequently publishes commentators from the movement”
    • The WSJ is a broken link
    • Politico . “In an interview with The Federalist published on Wednesday, Paul said the piece was "untrue.”
    • The Daily Beast “The conservative website The Federalist ran a story last week saying Tyson had used a nonexistent newspaper headline and a fake quote from a member of Congress in a presentation. Tyson had been trying to argue that journalists and politicians don’t understand data.”
    • Huffington Post, “Conservative journalist Mollie Hemingway criticized Paul for putting politics over principle. "This might be political calculation, but considering he wants to be known for being principled as opposed to pandering, he needs to reconsider his statements," she wrote in The Federalist. “
    • RealClear Politics A republished article from Rache Lu, The Federalist
    • Slate “ responded to the lengthy Washington Post exegesis in a friendly conversation with the Federalist, a year-old conservative news site”
    • Salon “And so when political reporters reacted to the Free Beacon story with a shrug, the right flipped into outrage mode. Here’s Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist”
    • Forbes No mention of The Federalist
Judge for yourself. IMO (and the reason for this AFD) is that we need secondary sources that describe this website in order to have an article on the subject. If you can help find secondary sources that do that, please bring them forth, so that we can have an informed discussion, rather than a battleground - Cwobeel (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: thanks for taking the time to go through the sources Cwobeel. I'd say that the minimal mentions of this site in those sources perhaps warrants a stub-class article and not much more. I note that you appear to be the onlty editor that actually invested the time and effort to investigate the real notability, unlike the majority of those coming here to scream "KEEP! I am OUTRAGED!". Regards. Gaba 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that per WP:WEBCRIT a website is notable only if The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . Where are these sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I was commenting simply comparing this with other stubs I've seen around WP, mainly anecdotal evidence and nothing policy-based. Sticking to WP:WEBCRIT my !vote is Delete for sure. Regards. Gaba 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This also from WEBCRIT: Misplaced Pages's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves. That's the problem today, as we don't have any sources that discuss the content of this website or the website itself. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The New York Times is a secondary source which does EXACTLY what you're demanding, so case closed. Your attempt to minimize the importance of every major media reference is truly revealing of your bias. Clearly, there is no evidence that would ever satisfy you. The pretense that you're some random observer with a passion for keeping Misplaced Pages articles notable, rather than a partisan out to defend Neil Tyson, is quite comical. Tell us, cwobeel, out of all the thousands of articles to choose from, how did pick THIS particular one as deserving of deletion? GaiaHugger (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Check my contrib list if you are so inclined. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I did before I made my comment, and saw you were a liberal partisan. But you haven't answered my question -- how did you pick this article out of so many thousands? Do you dispute that you are trying to quash criticism of Neil Tyson? GaiaHugger (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am not "demanding" anything. Please read WP:WEBCRIT which describes the criteria for assessing notability of a website. The first line of the criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - Please show me sources in which the content of The Federalist has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. I could not find any, hence this AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel I would bother responding. GaiaHugger. Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL]. Gaba 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a bit of a bordeline case since the website is relatively young, and there has not yet been full blown in depth coverage in independent sources. However, the full range of brief coverage in reliable sources brought forth by various editors above convince me that the site just meets Misplaced Pages's notability standards. I have participated in thousands of AfDs, noticed this debate mentioned on another website, and came to take a look. My personal political outlook is completely contrary to this website's, but I conclude that it is notable enough for an article. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote - I assumed this AFD was a joke - but the more I search the more I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.... the current article is 4 sentences. The first two sentences are entirely self sourced. The second sentence is Policico saying no more than the Federalist "seeks to go deep", plus a Media Matters Blog source. The final sentence is that the Federalist's articles have been cited by other news sources. As far as I can see it's IMPOSSIBLE to develop this article any further! I searched the links in the article, I searched the links on the article's talk page, I searched many of the links here, I did a Google search.... as far as I can see, we don't have ANY sources that say anything about the Federalist?!?!?!?! The site exists, it's widely read, many Reliable News sources have linked to or mentioned their articles, but as far as I can find the site itself somehow utterly fails Verifiable Notability?!?!?! Can anyone give any usable links that say anything about the Federalist itself? Did I miss any?? Does it satisfy Notability on the basis that Reliable Sources link to their stories? But that doesn't give us anything to build an article with. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A few hours ago this came out: This is painfully circular, but at least it's talking directly about the Federalist. It gives us (1) oft-cited TheFederalist.com (2) TheFederalist.com accused a popular scientist of making up quotes and (3) we're considering it for deletion (4) Federalist has been featured in mainstream media such as MSNBC and CNN. Alsee (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Easy keep. It and its content (including this retarded AfD) has had multiple mentions in RS, and this article is the natural home for Misplaced Pages's coverage of the controversy about the attempt to delete it. Andyvphil (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • weak delete per CWobeel (specifically this edit). It's not a god given right to have a wikipedia article about your web page, and sometimes there just isn't enough coverage to sustain one. Protonk (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Canvassing is a serious charge, so the issue as to whether those claimed here to have been canvassed properly belongs at such a noticeboard, rather than simply asserting that some, including some long-time Wikipedians, were canvassed should be discussed there, in my opinion, rather than having implicit charges simply attached to their !votes here. Notifying each person individually would be a substantial chore, so this is the notification to all. Collect (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

*Delete - I was able to find only a few sentences on the site itself. There does appear to be a spike of coverage due to this AFD, but it also doesn't say much about the website. --Jakob (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Though most of the coverage consists of mentions in passing, the Media Matters piece goes into decent amount of depth, and despite being young appears to be quoted from fairly often in other popular outlets. OhNoitsJamie 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable web site which has been recently discussed in Physics Today and The Daily Beast, among others. Whether editors here like The Federalist should be irrelevant to this discussion; even the editors who dislike The Federalist ought to be willing to acknowledge that it is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This is rather insulting. I dislike the site intensely, and I think it is not notable. Yet, I !voted weak keep. I have seen no evidence that anyone has said Delete that thinks it is notable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In order to avoid being misinterpreted, I've struck the latter sentence of my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The question of whether the website is "reliable" is irrelevant. All the significant material that has been sourced is about the founders or the artcle (in The Federalist, not here) about Neil Degrasse Tyson. I've been accused of being conservative and of opposing the scientific consensus on global warming, but there's not enough coverage here for an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    I came here from WP:ANI; I have no prior contact with the page, although I have some activity in political topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient mention in third-party sources. Obviously this AfD stinks of political machinations, which is unfortunate. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that this article even came up for AFD, and that so many people have voted for its deletion, is damning evidence of institutional bias at Misplaced Pages. We wouldn't nominate Wonkette for AFD, despite the fact that the Wonkette article is cited mostly to the website itself and to Breitbart. The Federalist is of similar caliber, and ignorance is not an excuse for deletion. Shii (tock) 20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Here is a superb page illustrating the significance and notibility of thefederalist.com
  • Keep As much as I don't like it, it seems to meet our notability guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEP The subject in question is notable. It has been referenced in muliple media sources. Beyond that (and it's really pathetic that I have to go beyond that) the timing and unfortunate POV conflict between some WP editors and 'Federalist' re Neil Degrasse Tyson fabrications only makes this AfD look entirely like an attempt at retribution. If the article is in need of deletion, it will still be in need of deletion in six months, by when the NdGT issue will also be notable (or not).Kerani (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep One of the arguments given is that much of the content on the site appears elsewhere, but that's not really a standard for notability - it's whether the site itself is talked about, not whether its content or its contributors are popular. That being said, there does appear to be enough discussion of the site in the wider media (it's a little tricky as Federalist is a word that's a familiar concept apart from the website) that I believe it gets over the threshold of notability, though not by a lot. The article could be improved (and should be improved) considerably as it's really just stub-level right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is is that the only source that describes this website in detail is a whopper of a critical article in Media Matters. Nobody else has written anything significant about this website. If this article survives AFD, and we add material from Media Matters, I can see already people coming to say that Media Matters is not an RS... So what we will do? Keep this article as a stub forever? That is what WP:WEBCRIT tells us to avoid. - Cwobeel (talk)
"the facts have been verified and repeated by the The Washington Post". When will this thoroughly debunked claim stop being repeated? Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they've been verified and repeated here by a Washington Post fact-checker with impeccable legal credentials:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/
It concludes: "Tyson claims to be a man of science who follows the evidence where it leads. The evidence here clearly shows Tyson screwed up. Whether knowingly or not, he regularly repeated a false account in order to cast aspersions on another public figure. The only proper thing to do is recant and apologize."
So no, it hasn't been "debunked." GaiaHugger (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion about the notability of TheFederalist.com, per WP:WEBCRIT. That article in the Volokh Conspiracy blog, does nothing to address the notability criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
For the fifteenth time, the Volokh Conspiracy blog is NOT The WaPo. Please read the discussion before adding to it. Objective3000 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, it hasn't been stated fifty times here and it's an easy mistake to make. To recap, the Volokh Conspiracy is a blog hosted by the Washington Post but the Post exercises no editorial control. Jonathan Adler is not an employee of the Post (and certainly not a "fact-checker") and the editors of the Post have no control or oversight over what he writess, nor do they do any form of fact-checking. In short The Volokh Conspiracy is not the Washington Post. Whether the VC could be used to establish notability is a good question. Perhaps we should ask at the RS notice board. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEP This article passes the threshold of verifiable scrutiny and skepticism. The Federalist is a reliable source of cross referenced viewpoints. The move to delete this article appears to be instigated for reasons other than journalistic integrity, standards or organizational reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanford robinson (talk • contribs) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Blanford robinson (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Keep - I'm a pretty active editor, so no one can accuse me of specifically joining this discussion after coming off "a break". And to be honest, not sure what "canvassing" means. It's clear to me, having read the above posts, that those who are requesting this article's deletion are doing so solely for political reasons. Clearly, with the numerous citations (which I won't rehash - they are clearly stated above) in various publications which span the political spectrum, this article exceeds the minimum notability standards. WP:WEB states, "Misplaced Pages bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners." Those who claim the sources are trivial are using a subjective viewpoint (as I am in saying they aren't). However the sheer volume of external sources would appear to contradict the claim of trivia. My understanding of Misplaced Pages that it was an experiment on consensus driven encyclopedic content. Not on blatant politically-driven censorship. Onel5969 (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Onel5969 removed the struck comments at 04:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC). Judging them relevant to the replies, I restored them and added the strikethrough. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No more surprised than I that an editor who would quote WP:AGF would be unfamiliar with all of it, particularly, "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." Just saying. Onel5969 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if any active editor was unfamiliar with appeals to WP:AGF by aggressive POV-pushers doing their best to keep ownership of various parts of Misplaced Pages. On the other hand "expressing concern" ad nauseum that opposing views are somehow illegitimately recruited, usually with no evidence stated whatsoever, is perfectly ok. Otherwise there wouldn't be a template for it, right?
Can we get a decision on this so that we can go back to improving the article? Some moron put on the universally acknowledged fact that "The Federalist" is conservative, which is making Misplaced Pages look as stupid as this AfD actually is, which is to say, embarrassingly so for anyone who might admit participating in this project. Andyvphil (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Once again, we have what can only be described as a partisan witch hunt against another conservative blog. Every single argument that has been used against this blog was addressed at the second deletion discussion for Americablog, which was kept, and the same arguments were used (just two weeks previous to the AFD for Americablog) at the Zombietime AFD, which was deleted. There is a clear double standard on Misplaced Pages when it comes to blogs, and it's time that the editors here recognize that the problem is getting noticed by more and more sources, and it is going to increase the credibility gap. Don't bother to cite WP:WAX; I've been here long enough to know the criteria for that argument, and recognize that it only applies when the argument runs against the dominant paradigm here. Before you flame me (and I'm sure that I'll be flamed) please read though those two AFDs and recognize that there is little difference (except for the outcome) between those two discussions, and how closely that they both parallel to this discussion. Horologium (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No actual policy based argument is given here for inclusion. That AmericaBlog should be deleted isn't an argument that this article shouldn't be deleted. Second Quantization (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The actual policy-based reason is that there is more than sufficient discussion of The Federalist in reliable sources to establish notability. I thought that my !vote was direct enough to infer the policy-based rationale; apparently I was wrong. As for Americablog (and Zombietime), I brought them up to illustrate the double standard. Again, I understand WAX. Horologium (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems like most of the comments have been about whether this whole deletion discussion has an ulterior motive. I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but as one of the editors who initially voted 'delete' (I changed my vote quickly when a couple sources were found) I would like to assert that I, personally, do not give a crap about the Neil deGrasse Tyson quote allegations, was not aware of them at all before I came here, have never heard of The Federalist, and generally do not care about this controversy. I find it plausible that other editors are similarly indifferent. People coming here because they've read this: , or something similar to it, have, whether they are experienced Wikipedians or not, been canvassed into this discussion, and mostly seem to arrive with the view that everyone here is aware of The Federalist and wants to suppress it. The truth is that not everyone lives in the same little world. With that understanding, I have to ask people to please restrict their comments to the issue at hand which is finding sources that, unlike the vast majority of sources cited above, can be argued to meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEBCRIT, so that hopefully we can get a consensus after all this, and not a no-consensus which looks like where this is going. Currently this discussion has turned up the following possibly-usable sources: , , . That is all, as far as I can see. (I am not counting the Volokh Conspiracy, which is also mentioned above, because I don't think it can qualify as a reliable source, but this is also debatable.) If anyone thinks they can add something new to this list, please let us know. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No, if you came to this page because you saw the attempt to delete the article mentioned derisively on The Federalist website you have NOT "been canvassed into this discussion". The article, or coming here as a result of it, does not fit the description of what is discouraged at the essay WP:CANVASS. If this is what the anonymous (absent an examination of the History) editor who has been dropping his little turds on others' comments has misconstrued as canvassing, I suggest he reconsider. Or at least sign his turds. Andyvphil (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Andyvphil: See "campaigning" and "stealth canvassing" in the guideline you cited. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. Neither applies. Andyvphil (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or wrong forum  Publishers have a low standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages for a couple of reasons, one is that publications are self-evidential, and two is that Misplaced Pages editors are consumers of publications and have a self-interest in acquiring and accessing (reliable) knowledge about publishers.  WP:Notability here is marginal.  I don't see that Misplaced Pages editors have been citing this source, and the topic is only a year old.  However, the marginal notability here is nowhere close to deletion policy, as inclusion on Misplaced Pages is not defined by WP:N, but rather by WP:V and WP:DUE.  On the talk page of the article, the nominator has stated, "No knowledge will be lost as the meager content in this article can be easily merged onto one of the website founder's bios in Misplaced Pages, Ben Domenech. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)"  So there is no policy-based argument for deletion at this AfD, and merge targets can be discussed on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks strongly like Misplaced Pages is trying to censor a critic of one of it's articles. This deletion is making the news and not helping Misplaced Pages look NPOV..Foofbun (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope Misplaced Pages doesn't dump its policies and just make decisions based on The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Objective3000 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy ... if an AFD is what makes this website notable, that says something about its notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That's clearly not what I said. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So far, I have found only one source that describes this website, and that is a highly critical article in Media Matters, about the anti-LGBT positions of The Federalist website. Have you found any sources that describe this website so that we can have an article about it? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked, but others have found references in Politico, Physics Today, The Washington Post (or at least its "Volokh Conspiracy" blog), etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
These are not references, but mentions. Read WP:WEBCRIT to understand what kind of sources we need. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - The key issue: we need coverage of the content, and again, the only source that covers the content is Media Matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Also from WEBCRIT: Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Two examples of what kind of coverage we need for an article on a web magazine or political website: Some examples: The Huffington Post, The Daily Caller - Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sufficient independent sources exist per links above. Article needs to be improved. --Trödel 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest delete possible in the history of deletes. There is no significant secondary source coverage about this topic in any independent, reliable source. Instead, we find the weakest sources possible, the majority consisting of self-references, passing coverage in unreliable sources, and self-references to Misplaced Pages and this AfD. There is nothing to talk about in a proposed article more than stub length, therefore it should be deleted. I should also like to point out that the discussion up above and it's associated attack on Tyson are a great example of yet-another Heartland-sponsored manufactured controversy that the Koch-funded, conservative noise machine engages in on a daily basis. These warriors for ignorance are the equivalent of intellectual terrorists, whose values and moral system of beliefs is indistinguishable from the anti-science and anti-human values of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They should be loudly opposed at every available opportunity, night and day, wherever and whenever these conservative champions of darkness crawl out from under their slimy rock. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: