Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Strong consensus to keep. Keep rationale seems to be strongest that Thefederalist.com is cited and respected by fellow media which makes it notable and secondary sources are adequate. Merge discussion can happen on talk page, content discussions should happen there as well. v/r - TP 20:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thefederalist.com

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)[reply
]

(Its inception in September 2013 is irrelevant to noteworthiness.) FChE (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


of course there arent secondary sources demonstrating notability ... they were all removed. WeldNeck (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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: [2], Second Quantization (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Second Quantization: Please note that personal attacks and comments on other users, rather than the content itself, is considered disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia policy.
  • @Mlcorcoran: Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you provide any specific links to these sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:SIGCOV. Specifically, none of these sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • @Sammy1339: Your questioning of mlcorcoran's statement that The Federalist was noted by the sources listed was a VERY serious one. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

UTC)

  • @Sammy1339: Please outline, in detail, the efforts you undertook to determine that The Federalist was not noted by those sources. Thank you.
  • Keep. You realize that you are just adding fuel to the fire and playing into Davis' argument? Are you all part of their viral marketing campaign? WeldNeck (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WeldNeck: I would ask who "Davis" is, but it doesn't sound like this is a consideration that ought to be part of the decision to keep or delete an article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your well-thought reason for !voting keep being? Gaba (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, whether they have received coverage 'is' the question, because that coverage will be the sources needed to write the article. Without those sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are a couple of HuffPo references I found to add to the above cites: [6] [7] Jwolfe (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that we're even having this discussion reflects poorly upon the user who initiated it. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a policy-based reason for your !vote? Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know that as well. You can't just raise your hand and shout "me!", this isn't kindergarten. Gaba (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My change of position is due to my previous misunderstanding of
WP:WEBCRIT. Reading it closely I had thought it didn't require the coverage be by reliable sources, but in hindsight that doesn't make sense to me; clearly there must be reliable sources covering the subject for a verifiable article to be written. (I think WEBCRIT could be written more clearly.) Media Matters is certainly of questionable reliability and in my view falls slightly on the unreliable side of the equation. The RSN archives show no consensus, and in my experience I've found too much inaccurate information on that site. It's a valuable research tool but I've always avoided citing it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Left what? You are here aren't you? While we are at it, please present your policy-based reason for your vote. Gaba (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Regarding the debate, the stated reason by the deletion side of the discussion is that there is a lack of verifiable sources about the website itself. This may be true in a limited sense, but is a mis-application of the guidelines. Notability and importance are determined by different factors for different topics. I am a professor in my real life; I don't deserve an article nor do I want one. The lack of third party sources writing about how important I am is certainly a key determining factor. The problem for a website that hosts political commentary is that this is not the best standard of notability. The best (or at least better) standard is to ask whether other notable political commentators write about the web site in question. Do other notable writers cite its arguments (either approvingly or disapprovingly). Frankly, I expect there to be a lack of reliable third party sources as to the existence of the web site, due largely to institutional bias. Do you really expect the New York TImes or the Washington Post to write a glowing article praising the founder of a conservative web site for his new venture (even as they have written such articles for liberal web sites that have disappeared into the ether). As well, how often do political commentators write about the existence of other commentators? They write about themselves--public commentary having a strong narcissistic component--and while they may cite someone else's arguments to agree or disagree with them, they rarely write origin stories on each other. The notability of a commentary web site is not determined by how many origin stories exist about it, but by how often it is cited, republished, quoted, used as a source, praised, or vilified by its peer sites. By that standard, Thefederalist.com passes. Thatcher 12:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not
the standard. Evidently you feel strongly to the contrary, and your view isn't completely unreasonable, so I encourage you to take this issue up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Never enough in your opinion. Why are you bringing Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep.Work by authors at The Federalist have also been at the core of articles at The Daily Beast [1] and The Washington Post [2]. 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." [3] 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?” [4]. 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-Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia is" articles and having to defend the site to people who only know about Wikipedia thanks to vandalism and controversial deletions (which is most of the adults I know.) Lloannna (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ban nominator for
    WP:LAW } 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Publisher Ben Domenech co-founded Red State blog (listed in the handful of notable US blogs in Wikipedia's "Political Blogs" page [1]) 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply
]
  • Keep per Calawpro. The Co-founders are prominent enough in their own right that their blog is notable. It's at least as notable as the ones on |this list so to remove it we'd need to prune that heavily in order to stay balanced.
addendum after reading other editors' comments, my take is that there are plenty of notable sources writing about thefederalist.com, but the "significant coverage in
WP:NOTABILITY requirements. FTR, I think it does meet notability requirements (see numerous cites posted in this thread) but by a narrow margin. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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:V reasons) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Obviously, the usual shenanigans. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I forgot to remove the tag a few days ago. So what? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
S, are you being serious or snarky? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [22]. Your argument is entirely incoherent, Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. I came across this page and found it to be not notable. My ulterior motives, if any, is to keep Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whether the site "gets it wrong on some of the things" is irrelevant. We are not discussing whether it qualifies as a
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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:V#Notability
    , which states,
Info from
WP:V's nutshell adds, "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Canvassing/meat/votestacking/etc. are highly relevant to the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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: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)[reply
    ]
Link please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That could certainly do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep (Suggest rename to WP:COMMONNAME) It meets the notability requirements. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a circular argument; it's notable because its notable, Second Quantization (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where are the sources we need for this article? Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

— 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply
    ]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that

canvassed
to this discussion.

Your argument is irrelevant to our notability requirements. Read our actual notability requirements
WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No. No one has sent me any emails, texts, etc., asking me to comment. I read both Wikipedia 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. [1]. 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)[reply]

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: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)[reply
]
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[23] [24] 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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[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." 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)[reply]
" 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)[reply]


  • 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 Wikipedia, but the credibility of Wikipedia 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. [reply]
Read our notability criteria
WP:WEBCRIT. Second Quantization (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • Keep Passes
    WP:GNG, article will need to be expanded upon though. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Expand it with what source? Second Quantization (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
[WP:GNG]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." E.g., the Politico article on right wing news sites ("main topic") gives non-trivial attention to The Federalist and constitutes "significant coverage" of the topic of the article proposed for deletion. Your refusal to acknowledge this is typical POV-pushing behavior, substituting obduracy for real argument, but I'm willing to assume that what's happening is a good-faith lazy substitution of a misremembered past reading of the essay rather than a determined misrepresentation of its known actual content. At least for the purpose of writing on this page. If that's true, I suggest you try rereading any dicta you cite before again mentioning it.
Andyvphil (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 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 Wikipedia. The site's nomination for deletion is possibly motivated by ideological bias. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

— 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[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia, as well as being (another) blow to Wikipedia's reputation for viewpoint neutrality. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 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:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • By the way, I note that I've been tagged as having been "canvassed." This is an apparent violation 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)[reply
    ]
  • 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 Wikipedia
    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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
As far as I know, Media Matters
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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. Lets just make sure that everything has an appropriate citation. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We don't use these ranking sites to assess notability, but if you insist Alexa, does not even have a ranking for it [25]. And memorandum only ranks "Lists the sources most frequently posted to memeorandum". Enough said. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Alexa. But, irrelevant as there are porn sites with higher ratings. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete 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)[reply]
Changed vote to delete. Considering the news cycle, if this hasn't hit a single national site by now, with all their recent efforts, it won't. It is simply an extremist blog. Objective3000 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"simple, unknowns only wishing to improve an encyclopedia" That's naive. See [26][27][28] The arbitration case archives contain further copious evidence of how often Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
I agree with Marteau. I'm not an editor and so I'm not voting, but right now I'm laughing at Wikipedia. Great entertainment! Thanks, lads! svs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.49.31 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that

canvassed
to this discussion.

This sort of false disruptive accusation by Cwobeel is (1) precisely why I don't edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editor was acting in a manner to embarrass Wikipedia 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)[reply]
THF: where is your policy based reason for your !vote? "Frivolous" doesn't really say anything and simply !voting is meaningless. Gaba (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. [29] To put it in perspective, 96% is the same rating that WikiQuote.org earned on Cool Media.[30] — optikos (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, what does Cool Media have to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria? If you want that site to determine notability, change the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia since 2006, so I don't want to hear anything about "canvassing". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
  • Keep—appears to me to meet the
    General Notability Guideline. N2e (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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 [31], 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 [32], mentions an interview by The Federalist in a short sentence, and nothing else
    • The New York Times [33] is a reference to Ben Domenech “whose web magazine, The Federalist, frequently publishes commentators from the movement”
    • The WSJ is a broken link [34]
    • Politico [35]. “In an interview with The Federalist published on Wednesday, Paul said the piece was "untrue.”
    • The Daily Beast [36] “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, [37] “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 [38] A republished article from Rache Lu, The Federalist
    • Slate [39] “[Ran Paul] responded to the lengthy Washington Post exegesis in a friendly conversation with the Federalist, a year-old conservative news site”
    • Salon [40] “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 [41] 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)[reply
]
  • 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 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This also from WEBCRIT: Wikipedia'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)[reply
]

convenience break
Check my contrib list if you are so inclined. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
Cwobeel I would bother responding.
WP:CIVIL]. Gaba (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A few hours ago this came out: [42] 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)[reply]
  • Easy keep. It and its content (including this retarded AfD) has had multiple mentions in RS, and this article is the natural home for Wikipedia's coverage of the controversy about the attempt to delete it.
    Andyvphil (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

*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. --

talk) 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
In order to avoid being misinterpreted, I've struck the latter sentence of my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
The WaPo vouches for the fact that these are the words of THE
Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Quite wrong -- Adler's article has EXACTLY the same status is any article, feature, our editorial published by the Washington Post. In fact, he probably has a higher status than most, since the author is identified and has impeccable credentials. You're quite silly if you're claiming that whatever reporters or anonymous editors contribute other material to the newspaper have some monopoly on the "Truth." I suppose that "Mr. Four Pinnochios" Glenn Kessler is the The Voice of the Post? Or Jeff Bezos? Try dealing with the facts of Adler's piece rather than your own unsourced, made-up hierarchy of press scribblers. GaiaHugger (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is little status at all as an opinion piece per
WP:NEWSORG, other than for it being his opinion. So, no it's not generally a reliable source, even if you are confused about Adler's area of expertise or his editorial governance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Same status as any article, feature, or editorial published by the Washington Post on the question of notability, which is the sole question presented here. Notability is not a factual inquiry, however confused you may be on that issue. GaiaHugger (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The admins over at the RSN notice board do not agree with your assessment. "...a key point (which appears to need constant reiteration) is that the blog is not under the editorial control of the Washington Post, and so the Post's credibility and reliability does not attach to the blog. " Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preposterous. They're selected, hired and paid by the Post same as all of their other writers. So of course the same credibility and reliability attaches. The Post doesn't exercise "editorial control" over any of its opinion authors -- and all that means is that the opinion doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of another co-equal set of writers, the ones who voice the Post's official political opinions. All that matters for the question here, which is notability, is that the Post has lent its name, and thus its reputation, to the blogs. It's not Blogspot, where anyone can open up a blog. GaiaHugger (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing perposterous, is your failure to understand or
WP:LISTEN that opinion blogs are not general RS per NEWSORG and notability is determined by RS and depth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

UTC)

WP:LISTEN
indeed! Neither of us dispute that (1) the blogs published by the Washington Post have equal RS status to anything else published at the paper, and that (2) for notability purposes, that RS is all that matters, not the identity or expertise of the particular author or reporter. So re-read NEWORG if this is not yet clear to you.
Preposterous indeed. People are treating reliability guidelines (and they are just that... guidelines) as if they were a formula for determining reliability, or a checklist. They are GUIDELINES for determining reliability, people! Not policy. Not a formula. Not a checklist. GUIDELINES. Guidelines which explicitly allow for common sense exceptions. To assert that The Volokh Conspiracy, a widely respected and widely cited blog written over the years by over fifteen respected law professors, published by the Washington Post, cannot be cited in this instance is ridiculous. One of yet another ridiculous, nonsensical outcomes this encyclopedia has produced regarding this issue. Marteau (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's still a blog with no depth on the subject. The silliness is your discussing his legal professorship when that has nothing to do with the article subject, nor with the person Adler was forming his commenting upon. You want to use his comments on a legal matter, we can discuss that, but not here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it hasn't been stated fiftyfifteen times here and it's an easy mistake to make. To recap, 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)[reply
]
And to repeat: the fact-checking of the blogs isn't relevant here, as the question is notability. The mere fact that an authorized blog of the Post finds The Federalist notable makes it notable. Whether the writer is factually correct about the allegations against Tyson recited in The Federalist is entirely besides the point (although Tyson has confirmed he was).GaiaHugger (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's not what makes it NOTABLE, which is a term of art, and not what you mean by notable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
    canvassed
    to this discussion.
  • Delete per No inherited notability (
    WP:WEB), how is the website its-self notable here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
  • I'm surprised an active editor is unfamiliar with
    WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
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 Wikipedia. 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 [
Andyvphil (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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: [44], 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: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: [45], [46], [47]. 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)[reply
    ]
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
Andyvphil (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Andyvphil: See "campaigning" and "stealth canvassing" in the guideline you cited. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I've looked. Neither applies.
Andyvphil (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The criteria for ARTICLE inclusion is in fact
Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I hope Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's clearly not what I said. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
  • Keep - Sufficient independent sources exist per links above. Article needs to be improved. --Trödel 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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 its associated attack on Tyson, as well as on reason (the real reason, not the fake Koch variety) is 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) 02:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting comments like this do not help. You should retract your rant. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second the request for Viriditas to voluntarily strike his comment, which detracts from the discussion. Shii (tock) 05:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage Viriditas to leave this writing here, and look forward to him participating in the discussion on the Tyson article. Marteau (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would third that he strike it except that it is a perfect example of both what is behind at least some of the delete !votes here and exactly what does not belong in this discussion or have any relevance to it. Of course, below is a good example of what is behind some of the keep !votes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AGF, but by no plausible interpretation could this post be in "good faith." --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There has been "unhinged vitriol" on both sides, and the proper response is to ignore it as irrelevant to Wiki policies, not to encourage it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should formally establish "Delete Because Koch Brothers And Also George Bush" as Wikipedia policy. (abbreviations: [WP:KOCH], [WP:TROLOLOL]) I mean, it's already assumed, but let's make it official. -- Narsil (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is pure political retaliation, to get even with the Webzine [redacted]. All the pretextual rationalizations are just so much smoke. But keep it up! Millions of people are learning the ugly truth behind WP’s pretty mask. 2604:2000:9063:9F00:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC) — 2604:2000:9063:9F00:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Insufficient third party sources to write an article. Trivial passing mentions in mainstream media do not an article make. Suggest merging into the article about the blogger who runs it. TFD (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who are saying that there is some notability, they are counting few mentions, can be same with many other websites. Noteswork (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The website itself is not a trivial website and does not fail WP:WEBCRIT, but the article is poorly written, lacks significant citations, and needs a significant overhaul. 5minutes (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the Federalist Society is notable,
    in no way does a website inherit independent notability. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Bearian To clarify: The subject of this debate is The Federalist.com an online newsletter (not a blog) written by experienced professional journalists (not bloggers) based in Washington D.C. and whether or not it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The Federalist Society is an organization made of lawyers, law professors, and law students that evaluates law and public policy from a conservative / libertarian perspective, and is not connected to "The Federalist.com". Mlcorcoran (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlcorcoran, yes, I know, but I'm not sure that a
moron in a hurry would know the difference. The Federalist Papers are also notable. This website isn't (whether one calls it a news aggregator, a webzine, a blog, or a news website doesn't matter for notability purposes). Bearian (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearian I concur that The Federalist Papers qualifies as notable given its historical significance with respect to the American founding fathers. However I do not think that the
moron in a hurry scenario applies to The Federalist.com, The Federalist Papers, and The Federalist Society. Each is distinct enough from the others that even the simplest of web searches can delineate them, and at no point in this debate has anyone expressed concern over users looking up the "wrong" Wiki article with the term "federalist" in it. I appreciate you clarifying your stance but I do not think that a vote to delete The Federalist.com article is justified by the existence of other articles with the same keyword. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you read the big notice on the top of the page? This is not a vote, AfD is determined by the strength of the arguments provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, thanks for the snark. Yes, I have read the "big note at the top of the page". I have also participated in many AfD discussions and I think it is extraordinarily clear that there is no consensus for deletion among the many veteran editors (including admins) who have commented here for keep and the many other editors who have suggested delete. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there are so many admin and veteran editors here is due to this being linked on ANI. I have been to a-lot of AfDs as well and can say anything can happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is ridiculously weak at this point, and the only examples of notable third party coverage that exist are for one event, which is nothing more than self-hyping puffery. Would not surprise me if it eventually becomes notable enough for an article, but they are far from there yet. At best it is worth an aside in the articles of its founders. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sourcing is weak in part because the article is locked. No one can make improvements based on the sourcing uncovered at this AfD. Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient
    WP:SNOW since with the comments above from many experienced editors there is no way there will be consensus to delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Who is "the founder"?
Andyvphil (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The founder of the website is mentioned above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem giving a straight answer?
Andyvphil (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "above" helps me disambiguate your usage of "the founder".
Andyvphil (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
How can that be? Just look for founder similar merge recommendations above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking what you mean, not what someone else meant when they said something more or less similar. Then, we can proceed to step (B).
Andyvphil (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
What? Step (B)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep in mind that the article is constantly changing due to heavy on-going edit warring. For example, the Tyson issue comes and goes from the article. At this point I don't see how any consensus can be reached because the article and references are in a constant state of flux. In my opinion, any disputed material should be left, so that it can properly be discussed here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a point. Though even looking at what was deleted, it seems all they've done is recently accuse a scientist of making stuff up, and were then mentioned by a few papers, due to the scientist's fame. And it has featured pieces about the sort of topical news you'd expect any political blog (or YouTube commenter) to talk about. I'm sticking with "So what?". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The site is by now well known,and there seem to be enough usable sources. I find the general attempt to discredit the sources as absurd, whatever the motives. However, similar attempts have been made here with regard to a number of politically charged subjects--to try to remove the articles on people or organizations on one side of the issue. On or off WP, Refuting one's opponents is legitimate; suppressing them is not. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? Your vote is based on assuming bad faith and should therefore be discounted. Have you looked at the sources, what's in depth and independent? The only thing absurd would be to give this subject a pass because, according to your vote, we should not examine the depth and quality of the sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He specifically says the site is well known and seems to have enough usable sources. That is the appropriate guideline. It assumes no bad faith. Capitalismojo (talk)
Well known? Nah. If that was the case we would have an abundance of sources describing the site, its contents, its contributors, and so on. But there is nothing on that, besides a scathing article at Media matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's not the standard in the guideline, the guideline mentions a "well known" award, because that would likely have independent, substantial coverage but here there is none. Moreover, to be "usable" for a deletion discussion, the sources must be independent and in depth, so therefore we must look at them critically.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps DGG didn't mean it this way, but at face value their !no vote appears to be contrary to several policies/guidelines. Determining the
WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought it was obvious from my wording that I considered the sources sufficiently reliable and substantial to establish notability. Those terms in the guidelines are not exact, and we tend to interpret them to give the result we want. But then, I find this so obvious a keep that it is clear we are either misunderstanding each other or using different assumptions. One of my assumptions is that on politics we should be as broadly inclusive as possible to avoid the danger of including only what we support. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, it's not obvious, when your own !vote argues not to examine sources critically, so it appears you have not done so, and therefore have no basis for your consideration. Generally
opinion peices are not reliable sources for anything but the author having an opinion, and almost all the mentions are in such pieces, and do not cover the website, as a website in straight reporting. So, that's why I asked what sources you were relying on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If keeping something doesn't make a difference to anyone, how can not keeping it matter? Wikipedia's editors aren't staff, they're volunteers from around the world, many of whom couldn't care less what's happening in Washington, let alone be part of it. It's all about the sources. Do you see well-sourced Conservative-themed articles up for deletion? If Wikipedia cared about that, you would. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge). As a disinterested 3rd-party, I can only go by what is included in the article. Based on cited sources, notability has not been established in the WP-sense. A cursory scan of the discussions above, suggests that many posters haven't actually read the relevant policies and guidelines. This is not a vote for "I like this topic" vs. "I don't like this topic". The article's only source that discusses the subject in depth is the Media Matters blog, which doesn't satisfy "substantial coverage.  —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Edit:03:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, where's my template so that I can express my anonymous "concern" that 71.20.250.51 is a sockpuppet for cwobeel? It's very odd to say, "[t]he article's only source that discusses the subject in depth is the Media Matters blog..." when the article nowhere mentions or draws upon the Media Matters attack.
Andyvphil (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do. A sockpuppet investigation would be interesting. Btw, I was referring to (this version) of the article, which had this (now removed) source:[48] 71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) P.s.: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations[reply]
I see, so when you said "included in the article" you meant "not included in the article". As to the sockpuppet "accusation", I suggest that instead of using your ip address you adopt the name "Irony-Challenged". Then we would know.
Andyvphil (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I am unable to time-travel, I was unable to predict versions of the article subsequent to my post. As for your
argumentum ad hominem innuendo, that shall be dismissed as assumed bad faith. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for the first ("included in the article") sentence. I was unaware that "protection" had been ended early, so that when I glanced at the article and saw no mention of the Media Matters article I assumed it had been missing since well before you came here. And, indeed, I cannot complain that you haven't read all the crap on this long, useless, page, and could therefor quite easily not have picked up on the irony I was engaged in. (Search the page for the word "turd", if you're curious.) So, my apologies.
Andyvphil (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Fun Fact: You can also Find seven "anal"s. And "The Federalist" is a coded anagram for "Hi, delete farts!" This talk page is clearly breaching
WP:CIVIL. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, October 2, 2014
(UTC)
I realize that I should leave well enough alone, but it is not "well enough" when an implied accusation of wrongdoing is left unresolved in an effort to discredit my argument.  71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're different people, for what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • Delete. Having looked at the article and the cited sources, I can't see how this can possibly reach the notability threshold, which requires "substantial coverage". I strongly recommend that the closing admin should take a hard look at the rationales offered for keeping this article, as many of them seem to be little more than "I like this topic", as the poster above says. There are probably more "keep" !votes than "deletes" at this stage, but it's quite obvious that most of the "keeps" are on the basis of reasons other than Wikipedia policies. These should be disregarded as irrelevant. Prioryman (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEBCRIT is a guideline, not policy, and it includes at the top the text that it "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I believe this publication passes WEBCRIT without those provisos, but those of us who may advocate a common sense exception still have the right to have our opinions be considered and your advocating that those opinions be "disregarded" during closure is out of hand. Marteau (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment and analysis. It's not just
    WP:WEBCRIT
    but you haven't made any attempt to suggest why an exception should be made in this case.
Regarding the nature of the votes, I've done a bit of analysis on this issue. At the time of writing there are 67 "keep" votes and 20 "delete" votes. However, there's a very striking pattern in the nature of the rationales being offered to keep this article. 29 of the "keep" votes give no policy rationale at all. Loyalmoonie's comment below is typical of these. 38 "keep" votes do give a policy rationale. Of the 20 "delete" votes, every single one gives a policy rationale. Additionally, there seems to be some dubious voting going on - users who have few or no other contributions outside this discussion - and almost all of those are on the "keep" side. This indicates to me that there is a good deal of overtly politically motivated activism on the "keep" side. I've no doubt that voters on both sides are using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a proxy for their political views, but it's clearly much more prevalent on the "keep" side. As for disregarding the views of the 29 keep votes that offer no policy rationale, this is common practice. We even have a page - Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - that lists invalid arguments, of which numerous examples can be found in this discussion, overwhelmingly within the "keep" contingent. Arguments based on explicitly political concerns have no currency in deletion discussions. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You admit yourself that there are more keep !voters giving a policy-based rationale than delete !voters doing so. Additionally, while you may not agree with those !voting keep, I find it rather insulting that you think the opinions of established editors who want this kept should be "disregarded" for some reason. --
talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There are more keep voters offering a policy-based rationale, but as I said in my original comment I don't find that rationale at all convincing as the sourcing is so thin. The current version of the article appears to be being used as a
WP:PPOV outlines why personal points of view are not valid arguments in deletion discussions. They never have been. If people want their views to be taken into account they should offer policy-based arguments. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The policy-based arguments for deleting this article are nonexistent. Incanting the names of various essays and policies in the hope that no one will actually look at them to see how they apply isn't argument, it's casting spells. You're right that the deletionists are particularly prone to this. It works so much better than actually engaging with the facts, which are against them. And getting more so, daily.
Andyvphil (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I note that there seem to be more admins suggesting keep than delete. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I have little doubt this will be notable soon, but not quite yet. Almost all of the coverage in reliable sources appears to be based on the Tyson business. Since Wikipedia is not news and typically wouldn't declare something notable based on one event—especially when the article is not about that event, nor about the event's primary subject—and because sources unrelated to Tyson certainly don't amount to notability, a weak delete from me. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we've got notable sources referring to this site, links near top of page, hard to imagine the fact that this is a conservative American website isn't driving some of the delete sentiment. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, Neil de Grasse Tyson. I think that explains this whole thing. I was aware of this website long before that, but the Defrocking of Tyson in various articles for journalistic fraud seems to have been too much for some people, and following the links one sees from right to left, from huffpo to wapo, that this is a vendetta to defend the hero of a very vocal POV. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no, wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS tracking every passing mention of the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
yes there is:
cause a ruckus" here in hopes of generating press coverage so that they may get their webpage on wikipedia. down that path lies madness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The purpose of applying
WP:WEBCRIT is to remove non-notable articles from the encyclopedia, so that it is not become a collection of cruft. In other words, it exists as a mechanism to improve the encyclopedia. Do you really think your AFD has improved, or will improve, the encyclopedia, beyond any negative effects this has had on the encyclopedia's reputation? Do you think this has damaged the reputation of the encyclopedia? Does the consideration of how our encyclopedia is perceived matter to you? Do you not concede that the timing of this AFD was poor? Marteau (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
In hindsight, yes (about the timing). But I did not expect this reaction when I placed the article in AFD. It was done in good faith, believe it or not. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the reputation of Wikipedia, I don't think Thefederalist.com and the conservative media have much love for Wikipedia anyway. So, in the eyes of whom has this tainted Wikipedia's reputation? What we show above is a vigorous debate, conducted (in most cases) in a civil manner. A good example I would say, not a stain. - Cwobeel (talk)
I think you overstate conservative media's opinion of WP. I also think you're not (yet) grasping the level of damage you've done to the outside pov of WP and it's open-editing process. I'll agree that the.federalist is a partisan site with a particular pov *and* that it was lightly sourced at the time you put it up for deletion. However, anyone who dives into the conversation either here or at the Tyson article sees *your* name, Cwobeel, signing statement after statement derogatory of conservatives, including many completely irrelevant to the topics at hand. This makes you look like a person with an ax to grind, and it makes WP look like a place where people like that can have their way. It's not like you AfD's the article and then let the WP community have its say. A reasonable person looks at this, and does not see good faith, nor a reasonable suggestion thrown to the WP community for discussion and examination. They see a vendetta - a particularly transparent and horrifically ill-timed one at that. You say this was a good example? At the very least, you've wasted everyone's time (as SNOW shows this article's not going away) boosted the signal of the site you've tried to make less visible, and made WP look even more like a place where hacks can rewrite the books to fit their pov. The comparisons to Soviet censors 'disappearing' people from historical photos are unkind and unhelpful, but they're being made because they're apt.Kerani (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. The way some of these sources are completely ignoring how things work on Wikipedia is enough for me to consider them unreliable, particularly The Federalist. But it is helpful to me to remember that it is not enough to be good, but one must also "seem" good. That seems Machiavellian and cold and calculating, but impressions do matter and need to be considered. Even the impressions of observers who don't see the whole picture. IMHO, of course. Marteau (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good lessons learned. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theorists are going to see conspiracies anywhere. We should not let potential (and perhaps even deliberate) misinterpretations and unsupported false allegations keep us from following our policies to create an encyclopedia. "What will the peanut gallery think?" If they are so paranoid and delusional that they see a conspiracy , who the fuck cares? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of who the fuck cares, if you (or any of you opinionated people) want to weigh in on a current issue at Talk:Peanut#We want a peanut gallery! while you wait for this to die down, that'd be cool. Still waiting for even a third opinion. You don't have to use puns to present your case, but feel free. Hope this doesn't count as canvassing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
The website is notable at least partially because of the significant coverage in Politico and Media Matters for America, both published before the Tyson controversy, and both enabling expansion of the current content beyond stub status. The article cannot have been created as a coatrack for the Tyson material as it predates that issue. If the Tyson material seems undue, expand it with material about their stance on LGBT issues from Media Matters or their previous most popular articles from Politico. Then, the Tyson content will assume due weight within an expanded article. As it seems that there is no consensus to delete, energy should instead now be devoted to improving the surviving article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the way it should be handled, but have you taken a look at the ongoing edit warring including by a delete !voter who publicly stated his hatred of conservatives above in very strong terms? It could only work if the article was fully protected with every change debated on talk. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been watching this debate but reserving judgement because I couldn't make up my mind on the quality of the sources. What tipped my decision was this article published yesterday in Politico that discusses the website, the controversy over Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the resulting Wikipedia drama. Kelly hi! 07:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? A single mention of the website in an
Opinion piece that's mostly about a person does not tip to in depth coverage of the website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion it does, when added to the other sources listed above. I think it's well within the parameters of notability for a political website. Kelly hi! 11:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which other sources? Other
Opinion piece's which are only RS for the author having an opinion. Where is the straight in depth coverage of this website? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
See above, particularly the comments by Thatcher, which I found illustrative. Do you always argue with the commenters on an AfD? I've stated my opinion that the website meets the notability guidelines and can be adequately sourced. The closing admin can evaluate my rationale but I don't feel any need to justify my opinion to you. Kelly hi! 11:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, to your question, see my many non-comments above. Are you unaware that this is a discussion? But thank you, now I can look at someone else's comment to see what you were sub-silento referring to. If it does not address the lack of indepth coverage from straight reporting then I'll know it is not based in sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again, having read Thatcher's comment, it appears to be not based in the standards we use. He or she argues the site may be notable for having opinions, but it's actually the authors who are notable or not for having opinions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize what I said. Kelly hi! 12:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intention, would you clarify? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From looking at this page and the Tyson page, esp the TALK page, it seems the "Thefederalist.com" was added not because of anything that makes it stand out on its own but because many editors were not able to edit the Tyson page the way they wanted. So they added the "Thefederalist.com" to get in their own POV edits. This page seems to be a 1 trick pony for no other reason then some are upset they were not able to get their way on another page. Unless the "Thefederalist.com" can stand on its own then it should not be here. At best a small blurb could be merged else where, but even that is a stretch depending on how it was written. Resaltador (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quibble, but the article in question has existed for nearly a year, long before the Tyson quote fabrication controversy. Kelly hi! 12:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Length a page was here does not make it any more notable. Before the whole Tyson issue this page was quite barren and should have been removed before. Now others have added the Tyson part here due to the fact they are not getting their POV edits else where. This seems pretty clear looking at the editors that have edited the Tyson Page and this one that the edits are not being made due to notability but because of their own personal POV. As such this page should be deleted and the main issue, Tyson, should be handled at that page not spawned off to another. Resaltador (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that the Tyson fabrication issue should have been handled at that BLP page, and not spawned off into a AfD of an article about the website who published an article on that issue. However, as it stands, failure to contain discussion to that page has led to significant publicity concerning the.federalist and WP policies. So we are here, now, with an article subject which is far more noteable than it was two weeks ago. Deleting the page makes no sense now.Kerani (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the situation seems to be the other way around. At the time this article was nominated for deletion, on 26 September, the recent Neil deGrasse Tyson articles in The Federalist had never been mentioned in
    Thefederalist.com cannot be said to have been added to Wikipedia because of the recent Tyson controversy (it was created in October 2013 and moved into the mainspace in November 2013), nor had anyone inserted the Tyson controversy into this article before this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your comment suggests misunderstanding SNOW and AFD, and "normally" does not mean that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me assure
WP:DEADHORSE? Just Let it go.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Then your commenting is either superfluous or you really do not understand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Roll eyes. Ahem... Yes, since the conclusion is foregone, I suppose I'll opine that (strictly speaking) my comments may be 'superfluous' (God forbid!). Incidentally, I've edited my first comment in this paragraph to make my 'Keep' straw vote explicit.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Just as long as you are informed that superflous comments are discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems needlessly argumentative. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As near as I can tell, those proposing deletion acknowledge all of the RS commentary about this site, but they feel that since nobody has actually gone on
    Yelp! and written a review of the website ("attractive theme, I like the typeface, but the opinion pieces are a bit stodgy and conservative for my tastes"), then it somehow fails notability? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, not RS for this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a stub article and needs to be expanded. Zonedar (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense dictates (and I assume Wiki policy is based on common sense and does not require us to abandon it) that any article that engenders so much discussion exceeds notability requirements.JS (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion of this article is based not upon policy, but a guideline. And that guideline does in fact allow for common-sense exceptions. Even if this article did not qualify under the guideline, this instance would be high time to apply the common sense exception clause. The damage this has done to the encyclopedia's reputation, all in the name of removing one frickin' stub... words cannot express, although I will continue to try. Marteau (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes little sense. Whatever reputation it has or had would be in following its policy/guidelines without fear or favor. The common sense approach would certainly not be to give a pass to a subject because the subject is loud. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bare couple of days after The Federalist attacks us, and this editor who is a very vocal attacker and opponent of the right wing in his talk, moves to delete The Federalist's article. And you think that's just fine. You can't see that waiting a little while might be a common sense move. That the encyclopedia could get along fine with having one more stub for a couple more weeks. Astounding. Simply astounding. Marteau (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is astounding is your constant one-sided AGF violations. It’s really tiring to read this, over and over. You are not helping your case by claiming to look into the mind of editors that don’t share your opinions. Seriously, people can honestly disagree, and there exist edits on both sides of the debate that have biases. Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cut me a break. Even Cwobeel himself admits that in hindsight it was a mistake. Marteau (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying we should play politics with it because 'it does not look good' for us to merge or delete even were that to accord with policy. You're arguing for quite an astounding lack of adhearing to principle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleting one frickin' stub in order to spare the encyclopedia embarrassment and not insignificant damage to it's reputation and to prevent allegations of biased to be spewn across the blogosphere is practicing common sense. The idea of pruning stubs is to improve the encyclopedia. If it doesn't improve the encyclopedia, don't do it. Common sense, right? This move to remove one dopey article has not made the encyclopedia better, but has caused damage. You may be OK with further cementing Wikipedia's reputation for liberal bias, I am not. Marteau (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not common sense, that's cowering in fear. You're arguing for cementing Wikipedia's reputation as the place where anyone can apply political pressure to get a "dopey article." Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You call it "cowering in fear". I call it "not being a goddamned fool." Marteau (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the foolishness is your saying we must keep a dopey article because of politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could have easily waited a couple weeks in order to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a punch line. There was no pressing need. Editors need to show a little common sense, and think of the greater good of the encyclopedia. This encyclopedia depends on the opinions and contributions of others, and further alienating a large section of the public for such a minuscule benefit as one less stub is out-and-out dumb. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could've stuff is irrelevant. It's dumb to wring your hands over could've, would've, should've. A dopey article is still a dopey article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you may. I prefer an independent encyclopedia, not an organization that shirks its responsibility and bows to the squeaky wheel. WP has policies. Please stop arguing the “common sense” of giving in to the loudest voice and concentrate on time-worn policies. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most "political pressure" can win you is some time. That might matter in some cases, but not this one, in my opinion. Had this AfD happened in november, the article would have been deleted with maybe a 4-2 !vote, but because it was nom'd right in the middle of a kerflufle, we are both going to look bad and get a result that has more to do with that "political pressure" you are talking about than with writing a good encyclopedia. Were is the sense in that? Bonewah (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A modest suggestion

Comment OK, everyone take a deep breath. This AfD discussion has generated more passion and vitriol than the decision whether to keep a stub article really should ever approach. My own feeling-- as I mentioned above-- is that the article merits keeping, albeit barely. But whether that answer is right or wrong, the simple fact is that, at this point, there is no way we're going to approach consensus any time this millennium. I think Prioryman's analysis of the vote count was interesting, but underlined the problem-- even discounting the "keep" votes that give little or no rationale, or which give bad rationales, the fact is that a delete decision would be taking the minority viewpoint, and while a straight up-or-down vote is generally not how WP conducts business, claiming you have a consensus for a minority is a hard sell. Consensus should usually result in supermajorities. The result of this AfD is going to be no consensus, and we should probably just accept that, move on, and try to make a marginal article as informative as we can. DCB4W (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken regarding stepping back and taking a deep breath. I have, and it was refreshing. Regarding the outcome here... the term "consensus" as used by Wikipedia is different than the dictionary meaning of the word. Wikipedia "consensus" is perhaps unfortunately named. "Consensus" here does not mean agreement, or even that there is "mostly" agreement. Nor does it require a super majority or even a majority. Consensus here is not a numbers game, but is based on the quality of the argument alone. A hypothetical example: Say there's a AfD discussion where seven editors make arguments that misapply policy, and three make arguments that apply policy correctly. A wise closer would understand that those seven editor's misapplied policy in their argument, while the three editors were dead-on correct. The so-called "consensus" would go to the three editors, even though they were greatly outnumbered. Marteau (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point in your hypothetical. But I think, as applied to this discussion, even if you apply a fairly strict filter to the discussion here, you're going to come up with large numbers of editors on both sides making reasonable arguments. I think the consensus mechanism is designed to keep close judgment calls-- cases where reasonable people can and do disagree-- from resolving in contentious ways. An article of questionable merit can always be improved. As the WP:Consensus policy states, "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately." It's a policy of risk aversion, which anticipates that long term, gradual improvements will usually result in the sort of supermajority "yeah, this works" consensus that I'm suggesting. Editors who believe that an AfD is being driven by POV-pushers will never accept that a deletion was the right decision, whereas editors who believe that POV-pushers are opposing an AfD might (somewhat grudgingly) accept that an improved version of the article might eventually be worth keeping. In your example, the seven policy mis-appliers are likely to come around to a consensus with the correct policy once it's properly explained to them. What we have here is two sets of editors who adamantly disagree with each other, understand the underlying policy, but frankly are suspicious of each other's good faith. This situation is NEVER going to get to anything resembling consensus, either the WP definition or the dictionary definition. This AfD is causing more problems than removing a questionable stub is worth, and more to the point, the decision isn't going to become any clearer. I think this is clearly a "no consensus-keep" AfD. DCB4W (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse making and saying we will never approach a decision in this millennium is....well, ridiculous and does not assume good faith. Your own words seem to point blanks say this is not a clear call, yet you side with keep in that opinion. How about you let the closer make that decision, whatever that may be.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as explicitly stated by the relevant WP policy, "keep" is the default result for an AfD that reaches
no consensus. And asserting that I'm not assuming good faith in response to my comment that we seem to have reached an impasse in part because we've passed the point where editors are assuming each others' good faith... well... I think most editors are probably acting in good faith. That doesn't help right now, because the discussion is so poisoned by suspicion that the two sides are talking past each other. Six months from now, if the article is still a poorly-written stub, maybe we can come back and discuss deletion without the keep and delete sides slinging POV-pushing accusations at each other. Right now, saying we'll never reach consensus isn't "ridiculous" or "Excuse making," it's my considered evaluation of the discussion. DCB4W (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And the decision of a consensus is based on the arguments presented by editors and interpreted by the closer.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that, which is why I'm making an argument to be interpreted by the closer. DCB4W (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor that started this kerfuffle with the AFD nomination (albeit unintentionally – oh boy lesson learned), I don’t think that a delete result would the best outcome either given the obvious lack of consensus and contention. A redirect to Ben Domenech (the founder of the website) may be a good compromise, into which the meager content at the stub article could be merged in a sub-section there. If in the future this website attracts sufficient coverage, it could be then spun into its own article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a bad compromise. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to be proven wrong about the possibility of consensus if more of the "keep" editors signed on for that. DCB4W (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As someone that doesn't like to see deletions on a regular basis, merging is always a good way to compromise in these situations. But I also feel the closing admin decision in these things should be respected unless there is something really obvious. I don't see this as one of those "obvious situations" so I do have good faith in admin on this. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the spirit of compromise is always welcome, as an advocate for the continued existence of the article, I am for letting it go to the closer. Marteau (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes compromise is the best route.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes. Marteau (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be viewed as a delete. If people really wanted a merge they would have said so previously. This appears to be an attempt by those that wish to delete as acceptance that it will not be deleted and the argument of merge is a secondary attempt to effectively delete the article. Arzel (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a merge is not a delete, so anyone can just explain that it is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture (optics) will tell the whole visual story, regardless of what excuse someone else tries to use. The delete crowd should never have broght this to AfD when they did. Ironically, the delete crowd made The Federalist even more notable. They should just deal with the consequense of the action. Arzel (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about "optics", except the those making political points? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just looked at the Ben Domenech article and there is presently no mention of thefederalist.com. I didn't look at all previous versions, but since there's no mention on the Talk page I'll assume that the article never contained anything about thefederalist.com. That's a bit perplexing, since the launch a year ago had quite a bit of fanfare in the blogosphere (aneccdotal evidence: I don't follow the blogosphere all that closely but I remember hearing about it). As it's common practice to list personal blogs on bio pages it shouldn't be contentious to have a brief section on thefederalist.com on his bio. I know thefederalist,com is more than a personal blog, but that's all the more reason to give it some space. My own considered opinion as a user is that there is little difference between a section on a page and a stand-alone article - if I'm trying to look something up I really don't care if it's the main thrust of the page or not as long as I can easily find what I'm looking for. That said, I also understand that there is quite a bit of Wiki policy that differentiates the standards of inclusion for stand-alone articles from that of information included on an article. This one is in the gray area for stand-alone and reasonable people can disagree. (so can unreasonable people, but I discount those opinions)
Which is a long-winded way of saying that while my !vote was to keep, I don't think merge is a bad option and could certainly live with it as a compromise. I strongly oppose simply nuking the material off of wikipedia altogether. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Comment 'Merge' would be a very bad outcome. If the policy says that in the absence of a consensus the decision should be 'keep', then policy should be followed even if some do not like the result. Clearly there is no consensus for deleting this article, does any editor actually claim there is any such consensus? I believe policy does not say that in the absence of a consensus a compromise should be found. The important necessity for collaborative effort is that one must follow rules even when one does not like the outcome. Merge would be ignoring those who voted 'keep' in contradiction to policy. JS (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be fucking kidding! Now that it's obvious that the indicated policy result is a no-consensus KEEP the deletionista are all ready to "compromise" on a...wait for it... DELETE????? The articles that have brought the most attention to this magazine are, btw, by co-founder Sean Davis, so it's complete idiocy to propose that it be merged into

Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

No. No one is saying you can't mention the website also in a Sean Davis article, assuming he has a policy compliant article, even were it merged to Ben Domenech per the cites. Your argument also shows the plain fact that the website is known, if at all, for one incident, and not by in-depth substantial coverage of the website in multiple independent reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What my comment shows is that The Federalist is the joint effort of multiple people and it makes no sense whatever to try to cram coverage of what one of them has accomplished at the magazine into the biography of another. As to whether the magazine has had substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, you lost that argument already. Get over it.
Andyvphil (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
cramming what? theres not a fucking thing to "cram". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one should cram anything anywhere, but proper organizational metrics should be followed. "Lost"? You seem to misunderstand policy. Lost is not it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"substantial coverage" that you have argued at article's talk is not to be added to the article. This is a case of wanting the have the cake and eat it. If the article is kept, I'll guarantee you these sources will be used because these are the sources that will make it keepable. Be careful of what you wish for. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the article is kept you will make sure that the article reflects badly on The Federalist? Threats like these simply weaken your position and show it to be purely vindictive in nature. Your threat is also clearly a sign of disruptive intention. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I, for one, is
doing the work. See Ben Domenech#The_Federalist. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I see you are already started You know, crying BLP and
WP:COATRACK and then coatracking the person that started The Federalist looks really petty and disruptive. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please AGF, even if that is hard for you. I am using the available sources discussed. You are welcome to join me and others in building articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just said..."If the article is kept, I'll guarantee you these sources will be used because these are the sources that will make it keepable. Be careful of what you wish for." and then added a pretty negative, one-sided, non-neutral, attacking section to the Ben Domenech article under the guise of "merging". I think it is pretty obvious what you are doing. And this is not the first time you have made that threat. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you enjoy endless discussions? Why don't you spend some of your valuable time
doing the work? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you enjoy violating WP policies just to try and make a
WP:POINT. I don't have time to start an edit war over your temper tantrum regarding this article. I will simply point out your violations. This section is from a non-RS and is even further removed from the focus of the article. Exactly what are you trying to prove? Arzel (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(
WP:TNT may be appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to have to agree with Rubin. There is no policy preventing a compromise solution. To the contrary,
WP:CONSENSUS (which is a policy) directly states that consensus "is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies". I voted merge not because I am trying to censor thefederalist (really, I'm not. I have no vested interest in this debate), but because I believe it is the outcome that will best address everyone's concerns while adhering to policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:POVFORK. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, you would not put the same thing in both articles, unless it is 'just so-and-so is a founder of . . ., but the Domenech one is still the logical target because of the mention citations, such as this mention. Moreover, there is apparently no Sean Davis article for this Sean Davis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thefederalist.com&oldid=1082986733"