Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)

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.  Sandstein  14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Underground

If 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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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 csp |username}}.

Democratic Underground (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 notability. Virtually all of the sourcing is to the site itself. What little sourcing that is considered a RS, discusses DU with respect to a lawsuit brought by a copyright troll, of which they were a defendant.

  More specifically, this subject fails

  WP:WEBCRIT in that it has not ... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. nor has the site won any awards (well known or not) from independent organizations. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Disagree with deletion. The website is a significant political website in the USA, and the lawsuit they successfully defended was against a major newspaper publishing company, with significant precedent for what counts as fair use quotes on the internet. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is already covered by Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. What sources say DU is a "significant political website" as you ascertain? The article has none, and I haven't found any in my searches.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ranking showing it as the 11th most popular liberal website (and that's including things like 'Time' and 'CNN', which are clearly not liberal political websites): http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/ Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to assume rightwingnews.com is a RS (I posit it's not), a mere entry on a list does NOT make it notable. This is less than a trivial mention. The source provides nothing but an Alexa ranking.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa is a major tool for determining the popularity of websites. To dismiss its results as 'nothing but an Alexa ranking' is ridiculous - there is probably nothing more objective available to determine what is a "significant political website". You appear unwilling to consider any argument. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2016

Are you willing to listen to other arguments? You don't understand the ins and outs of how conflict resolution works on the English Wikipedia. We use policy (community sanctioned "laws" of Wikipedia) and guidelines (best practices). Those are all of those WP links people show you. Please read them. But I can save you some time. Notability (what determines if an article should exist) is a very well hashed out subject and it is codified by policy and guideline. What those say, in a nutshell is "Only notable subjects gets an article. Notability is determined by third party, independent, reliable sources." Reliable sources is a subject of its own, but think of newspapers and books and has some sort of oversight. These RS now need to establish notability, which is done when they discuss a subject with some depth. "List" type articles, that have a name and number and not much else don't meet the bar. How much is needed? We know it when we see it. Now if this list discussed the DU and gave us some details that were interesting, or they demonstrated the DU was influential, now we would have some evidence of notability. The burden for determining notability is on those who wish to keep the article. But that's Wikipedia for you. Every article and evey word must be

verifiable, and when challenged the burden of that falls on those who wish to include something. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Alexa notes popularity, not notability. Notability is the guideline used to determine whether a website should have a Wikipedia article; see
  WP:WEB which says: '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice.' We need sources that prove that DU is notable; the only possible exception I've seen from the ones listed above is Newsbusters but that article is actually a blog entry by (presumably) a Trump supporter using DU as a source of schadenfreude, I'm not sure if that really is what we mean by coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Correct. Alexa rank is irrelevant. If DU were truly "popular" then one would expect RS would exist to assert this statement. If RS could be found that mention DU in a non-trivial manner then I will withdraw my nomination. I'm still miffed that someone dared accused me of making this deletion discussion as a result of personal politics, when in fact I hold personal opinions that are in line with many of DU users. But personal politics have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poplar website is, by definition, notable among many people. Popularity is the most objective test of notability. You may be able to make cases for other sites being 'notable' using other metrics, but popularity has to be one that is used, or the word becomes a subjective idea of how important the speaker thinks something is. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that popularity is not how notability is determined at the English Wikipedia. If something is popular, there is a very good chance that a RS takes notice and writes about it. But that is not always the case. We use official Wikipedia policies and guidelines to resolve pretty much every dispute. Please read

WP: DISRUPTIVE behavior and an admin might take action against you, up to and including blocking your account.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

My arguments are not unsupported; I gave the link showing Democratic Underground is one of the most popular liberal websites. Your dismissal of that is, however, unsupported. You suggest reading WP:WEB; I already had, and the Alexa ranking is "verifiable information from reliable sources". The Righthaven lawsuit is also an example of a significant effect on culture. I don't appreciate threats, and your claim that if I continue arguing against you (by repeating the use of the objective Alexa ranking, which you dismiss in favour of your own subjective ideas of 'fame' or 'importance', against the WP:WEB guidelines) I may get banned comes across as a threat, which is highly inappropriate. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again

WP:ALEXA, and I quote again, "Specifically, Alexa rankings are not part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons..." - emphasis theirs, not mine. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• And since it's been days without anything which meets notability guidelines, I'm now leaning Delete. Good sources will sway my opinion, "but it's popular" arguments will not, per Wikipedia guidelines. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the importance of Democratic Underground's counterclaim lawsuit (they were not just defendants) against Righthaven, it forms a significant part of the 'Copyright Trolls' section of "Major Principles of Media Law" (2013 ed.), published by Cengage. Calling Righthaven "one of the more notorious trolls", it quotes the EFF saying "In dismissing Righthaven's claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt's ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights. The ruling speaks for itself." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dub0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293 Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that case,

WP:NOPAGE should apply, which means we should keep the information in the court case article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• I also disagree with deletion. A simple Google News search on "Democratic Underground" results in 25000+ articles about DU from all kinds of news sources including major newspapers around the world. Let me know if anyone needs me to post specific links on that because there are many. Anyone saying DU fails on notability grounds has simply not done any research at all to determine if that is so. Steven Leser (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Steven Leser[reply]

I really think your time would be better spent looking for better sources. I'm assuming DU members are reading this. If they know of any, sharing them would help put this to bed. Popularity and quotes from users, doesn't determine notability. And I'm basing this opinion having witness how Wikipedia sausage is made. And I apologize if you felt I was threatening you. There are plenty of editors who would give you the barest of warnings while attempting to goad you, just to see you get blocked. Wikipedia can be a very nasty place. We have given you advice on what constitutes notability, as our experience has taught us. I don't think arguing about what policy and guidelines means counter to that experience is going to bear any fruit. Your best bet is to find sources.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, post some quality reliable sources. I'm getting vastly different results than you claim to have retrieved. Perhaps notability can be established. I don't see anything in the current state of the article indicating as such.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are just a few:

Democratic Underground calls McCaskill an “attack dog” and says she’s implying he’s a communist.

 2 2 Retweets   likes

• All of these are trivial references to DU. "A commenter at DU said X". If DU is notable, surely there is a source that discusses the DU in more than a few sentences, right? What you are suggesting as sources goes against how we define GNG.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are not trivial as defined by the GNG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. What is also going against you is that any site that is mentioned in 20000+ articles in Google News is clearly not being mentioned because it is a non-notable website. <redacted> Steven Leser (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'I would also like to point out that there is a user on DU with almost 30K posts that also shared your username. In light of this discovery, one might very well say your objection to deletion might be politically motivated and/or this is a classic case of

WP:ILIKEIT. Regardless, on Wikipedia we use policy and guidelines to handle editorial decisions. So far, none of your arguments has a basis in either. That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• They are trivial. I'll go with the first, the Washington Post article. It's not about the Democratic Underground website. Someone found a funny post and quoted it. Which is nice, but that doesn't make the web site where they found something funny notable. If they found that post in the comments in someone's blog, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all about notability. Please re-read
  WP:WEB. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The GNG does not say the articles have to be about Democratic Underground. And once again 20,000+ mentions in different Google News articles completely flies in the face of your attempt to couch Democratic Underground as non-notable. Steven Leser (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? To quote

WP:WEB: "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[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] 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." Having a one-line mention of a comment someone said is "trivial" by anyone's definition. I'm not saying delete because I think this site is pretty notable, but really if you used that kind of example in a new article you'd get a7'd so fast your head would spin. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mr. Vernon: before I read the article, I too thought DU would have been notable per Wikipedia standards. The article was such an embarrassment that I went looking for better sources. I couldn't find a damn thing outside of the lawsuit. The fact of the matter is that DU, while it has a decent userbase, hasn't drawn the attention of reliable sources. Without sourcing, what are we to do? There's no there there.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think DU meets all the criteria you just mentioned via the links I submitted. Steven Leser (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Steven Leser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• You have two experienced editors telling you these are trivial mentions. I have examined every one of the links you provided. All of them are one liners. Can you tell us why you think the mentions are non trivial? Perhaps quote something that you think is not trivial? Since your edit history is rather sparse, would you mind if I asked how you came upon this deletion discussion?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move On all also have Wikipedia entries). For her PhD thesis Agonistic democracy and the narrative of distempered elites: An analysis of citizen discourse on political message forums, Jennette Castillo wrote about Free Republic and Democratic Underground as exemplars of conservative and progressive political forums. These academic papers show the notability of Democratic Underground in internet political discussion. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Analysis Dr. Pickard's paper, for the purposes of this discussion, is a survey of online political sites at the time. There is a section of three paragraphs specifically on DU, which is about average for the sites covered (Indy Media has 4, Free Republic has 3, MoveOn has 2.) Google Scholar indicates it has 56 cites. The link to Dr. Castillo's dissertation did not work for me but Googling the title of the thesis brought it up fairly easily, I think the ?s_= part of the URL is a session ID which would be invalid for more than one use. This thesis is more "about" DU and Free Republic - in fact it's dedicated to those two sites, and easily spends close to 20 pages on DU alone. Per Google Scholar, it has 7 cites. Both sources date from the same year, 2008. We should follow the guidelines in

WP:WEBCRIT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Looks the DU members are rallying folks to protest the deletion [[1]]. Some are represented in the above comments.Dman727 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - OK I looked through pages and pages and pages of Google News searches... the sources required simply aren't there. It may be a popular community, but it only gets occasional brief mentions in
  YO 😜 14:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Borderline Keep, The subject does have "some" reliable sources speaking about them, however, I don't see much notability at all. If this article were to stay, I would definitely love to see most of the content written be deleted and give this article a significant makeover. Also, the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject"? The lawsuit was at first brought by Righthaven against Democratic Underground, who, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, successfully defended that (Righthaven withdrew) and counterclaimed (that Righthaven was misusing the copyright laws). It was not about 'publicity'. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak as to what Scorpion meant, but I'm fairly certain he is incorrect that sources can't be used if they are "triggered" by the subject. Sources are sources, and sources independent of the subject are preferred. I don't understand his "borderline keep" as he also indicates he doesn't see "much notability at all". The lack of notability should lead to a delete !vote. Regardless, the sources he is referring to pertains to the fair use lawsuit, which is notable, and is reflected in the article about the lawsuit. Peace, have you searched for other sources that might establish notability for the DU independent of the legal case?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did show the 2 academic papers classing Democratic Underground as a significant political online forum - see a few entries further above. Mr. Vernon replied, but you didn't, so I don't know if you saw that. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and his analysis is fairly well thought out.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not that it should matter, but the above discussion makes it clear that at least some commenters think that membership or participation in DU renders one's discussion somehow less valid: For the record, I am not involved in DU in any way. That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess. The previous nomination was a Speedy Keep, and I can see nothing that has changed which should overturn that decision. There has been substantive coverage in Huffington Post, Wired News, Newsbusters, and Daily Caller. Again, I feel I need to pre-emptively note that it is entirely unremarkable that a contributor to the new-media web-based news ecosystem primarily generates coverage in other parts of that same news ecosystem. Their new-media web-based nature does not mean they are not
  WP:RS. A full debate about the reliability of this type of source (oh no! not blogs!) is obviously beyond the bounds for a simple AfD discussion. That said, the above discussion is in itself evidence that this has grown beyond a simple AfD discussion. By the criteria advocated above, it is doubtful any web-based news media would qualify for notability, no matter how many people depended upon it for information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The speedy keep result from first AfD was based solely on the consensus that the nomination was due to internal DU politics and rightly considered a bad faith nomination. There was no discussion of the content of the article or its sources. The first AfD has absolutely no merit with regards to this AfD. Regardless, per

WP:GNG and/or B) identify and demonstrate that one or more of the Subject-specific guidelines is applicable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, AfD discussions are just that: discussions, with the goal of reaching consensus. Only a truly disputatious individual would risk edit blocks and other measures by making it personal. To conjure ad hominens out of the simple observation that "..the nomination here seems very driven" is debatable in that light. That said, if 2000+ words over 28 edits doesn't constitute "driven," then I don't know what would. Editors often feel a need to take

WP:RS

that had substantial coverage of DU, but perhaps you are right that I should have include full links. Not a problem:

• Newsbusters [2] (yes, I see it linked previously, no I don't agree with the characterization)
• The Register [3]
• The Daily Caller [4]
• Wired News [5]
• TechPresident [6]

Thanks Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one throwing out accusations. You chose to question my motivation, with no evidence. The implication is fairly clear. If you feel a boomerang is in order, well I'm sure you know this isn't the forum to address that. I'm fairly confident any boomerang won't come for my neck.. As to you providing sources, I thank you. However we both know The Daily Caller and their ilk are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. The Wired article is an excellent source, but it doesn't discuss the DU outside of the context of the "news troll" (for the lack of a better term). This lawsuit is notable, and indeed already has an article. But it and the rest of the sources you provided don't discuss the DU In terms to satisfy

WP:WEBCRIT. For reasons that elude me, DU has not received any significant coverage outside of the lawsuit. Once again, if anyone can find some I'd be happy to reconsider my position.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Curious. Maybe you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing. I see "...the nomination seems very driven..." I don't see "the nominator is very driven" or "...TMFN is very driven..." or even "...TMFN is making bad faith arguments...". I never said anything like "TMFN is doing something wrong and his argument should be distrusted." That is kind of the sine qua non of the phrase ad hominem. To be plain: You assumed I was meaning something that I was specifically avoiding implying. Your evident offense is misplaced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing curious about it. You can parse words all you like, I doubt any rationale person will see the distinction. Unless you wish to discuss the merits of the AfD instead of motivations, I think you and I are done here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article already has good mix of sources including both The New York Times and Fox News. Also discussed in multiple books including Beyond the Blogosphere: Information and Its Children by Aaron J. Barlow and Robert Leston, and Major Principles of Media Law by Genelle Belmas and ‎Wayne Overbeck. Sagecandor (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm not sure if people are reading the prior discussions before adding their !vote, but both of those books are only mentioning DU with respect to the lawsuit covered in Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. I can't speak to exactly which FN and NYT articles Sagecandor speaks of, but so far no one has been able to produce an example from either organization that mentions the DU outside of s trivial mention.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The re seem to be sufficient news stories, but about half of it, the copyright troll lawsuit, is covered elsewhere in WP. The GNG needs to be interpreted liberally for media organizations w which can be very notable, but still rarely written about. There of course has to be at least something to show more than mere existence, and there is here. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is DU considered a media organization, and by whom? They are internet-based forums and should be judged based on criteria for similar forums, so falling under
  WP:WEB. This is not making a judgment on them, but we should apply Wikipedia's criteria consistently. I would consider them as much a media organization as Free Republic. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Free Republic is a great example of why some web forums have articles, and others don't (or shouldn't). If you look at FR's lead, skipping over generic web forum description to the second paragraph:. Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos". This meets

WP:NMEDIA that could classify DU as a media organization?That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no clear distinction for many website, as NMEDIA makes clear, by saying it isn;'t discussing them. In a broader sense, sites devoted to advocacy and news about current events count as media organizations. In any case, I favor a broad interpretation for sites such as this, as I do for all political subjects. Otherwise there tends ot be sometimes a tendency to be influenced by what one supports personally. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Labeling DU a "Media organization" is just too far of a stretch. Such a broad interpretation would qualify just about every Disqus site. Indeed there are many Disqus sites which produce actual content and they wouldnt survive a speedy delete. Now being an "advocacy" site might have some merit, but we come full circle back to where are the sources? Both DU and FR are essentially news aggregation echo chambers and while they both unabashedly advocate, FR's advocacy attracts the attention of sources. Regardless, thanks for discussing. Perhaps when this is over would you help me starting a discussion at whatever venue would be the most appropriate to discuss criteria for advocacy organization's notability? If this article is kept, it would be more of an annoyance to me that it doesn't (IMO) meet any relevant guidelines vs it being kept. If that happens, perhaps the closer's rationale can provide more insight.

I haven't been idle on trying to find sources for DU. The current state is better than what I found it in, but it's still in very poor shape.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- there's sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are many independent sources linking to DU. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com "Democratic Underground"" finds 400,000 hits. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com link:democraticunderground.com" finds 350,000 hits. Are those hits substantive? On just the first few pages of results, I see many that are substantive, especially from opponents of DU.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] COI Notice: I have a vague recollection that I may have contributed something to DU around a decade ago. I have no connection otherwise. RichardMathews (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, Wikipedia doesn't consider Conservapedia as a NPOV source. I checked some of the other sources you mentioned, which I had found with this Google search. The first few mostly quoted DU user posts as examples of "I can't even!" from more politically conservative websites, e.g. Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News. Many of the other articles are specifically in reference to the Righthaven lawsuit, which already has its own article. I *DO* believe you made a good point, that opponents of DU might provide more substantive material to support keeping the article. I will continue searching. I have another idea: Could we justify keeping the article (because of its history and consistent presence as a high traffic website) by changing the status from C-class to Stub, and including it as part of the

Internet Culture Wikiproject?--FeralOink (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There are websites, for which Wikipedia has articles, which reference Democratic Underground extensively. The best one that I found is Power Line which has been writing about content provided by DU for nearly two decades, see here Power Line stories discussing DU. I'm not sure if Snopes is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. There are a few Snopes articles that investigate content from DU, e.g. Sanders Marched with MLK at Selma?. Also, here is a TechPresident article whose content is focused specifically on DU: AP photo became viral Romney meme. This is the best I could find that hasn't already been listed earlier in this AfD discussion.--FeralOink (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've identified the problem with citing Google hit counts. Analysis of the hits show the same thing: The lawsuit, and trivial mentions. Just saying "sources exist" really shouldn't fly without highlighting a few which might establish notability. Good luck in finding some. That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2016 (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.