This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Notability - This page does not cite any independent sources who consider the website notable enough to write nontrivial works focusing on it. It gives a description of the blog and discusses its popularity, but the independent sources cited only talk about its description and popularity as well; they do not give a reason this should be considered notable. Eqqman (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
TechDirt is not a site I often visit but is well-respected within the IT and tech sphere, cited pretty often, as in this article from today's The Register (10 paras in): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/18/open_and_shut/. Unless you would suggest The Register is not a 'notable' publication too? I'm afraid I found your suggestion that this widely-cited blog is not 'notable' rather odd. Further, TechDirt attracts constant and widespread criticism from the copyright & IP lobbies, so I'm a little concerned when I read a veiled suggestion that its Wikipedia page may possibly be considered for deletion.Blitterbug 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)
I wasn't saying the site wasn't notable, just that the Wikipedia page doesn't give any indication of why it is notable. The Wikipedia page should detail where and when it is cited, and what it has achieved, which should be easy if it is a well-cited blog.