Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Optikos (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 27 September 2014 (→‎Thefederalist.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thefederalist.com

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT - Website launched September 2013. Passing mentions and trivial coverage in a number of articles, does not meet the criteria established for web notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Its inception in September 2013 is irrelevant to noteworthiness.) FChE (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:RS secondary sources demonstrating notability. I am willing to change my position to Keep if reliable sources are produced which are dedicated to discussing the Federalist, not passing mentions in articles. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 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 list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most of the sources below are no good, this one by Politico constitutes independent in-depth coverage:[1], and together with a multitude of passing mentions probably qualifies it as notable. I'm concerned that there are few good sources and that these are not used at all in the article, but that's reason to improve it and I'd rather err on the side of not deleting articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • @Mlcorcoran: Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you provide any specific links to these sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mlcorcoran: These sources are marginal at best in my estimation. The first two are lists of David Harsanyi's writings, which establishes the notability of David Harsanyi but not the place where he works, and the last two only mention The Federalist once each in passing. The third one, from Physics Today, discusses conservative political criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson and mentions The Federalist a few times, but I think it would be hard to argue that this constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Specifically, none of these sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • Keep. I think there's been enough talk of it to satisfy WEBCRIT, it's just hard to find because the name isn't unusual enough to stand out from the more famous work from 1788. Media Matters saw fit to write about them back in April [3]. Politico wrote about them, as well, back in January. [4] Physics Today wrote last week about their current imbroglio with Neil Tyson [5]. More are bound to follow on that point. And that's just what I found in a few minutes of searching. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are an original news and analysis site. The question isn't whether they have received mentions and coverage, it is whether their work has been cited in other publications of established reliability. The editors above have more than demonstrated that is the case. Also, I try seriously to Assume Good Faith around here, but the timing of this is more than suspicious. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • Strong keep. It has a number of well-known writers and is often referred to by external sources, as per WP:WEBCRIT. (For example, its cheerfully trollish vendetta against noted former scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been linked to by, among others, a blog at the Washington Post: Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?) The argument against keeping the page seems to be "Sure, people may link to its articles and talk about the articles, but they aren't talking about the website, just the articles on it"--I just can't see that that's reasonable. Delete the page and it's going to look like a childish tantrum by Wikipedia. Narsil (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Barely makes it over the hump. I see a lot of passing references to the subject, none of which matters per WP:WEB. I see non-trivial coverage by just two sources, Media Matters and Physics Today. Kudos to Coemgenus for finding those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being mentioned in RS sources for material published therein is key here - the removal of all such sources prior to listing at AfD may well have been improper. [8] NYT, [9] NYT etc. show it is notable enough for the New York Times. [10] WaPo. [11] WaPo. etc. (many earlier behind paywall). Any website mentioned by both the NYT and WaPo meets the GNG, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • Keep. The sources identified by Coemgenus are sufficient in my opinion to indicate the required level of notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OP removes links to the Wall Street Journal and CNN (and many others) then cites "trivial coverage" as a reason for removal. Facepalm Facepalm --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 26 September 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]
  • 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 pointy, tendentious abuse of process. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not support banning. Everyone makes mistakes, and this doesn't rise to that level.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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. 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:NJournals, WP:NACADEMICS and others have being cited and alluded to as evidence of notability, and I think its reasonable to apply here as well. (Although without sources directly discussing them, the article will need to remain a stub for WP:V reasons) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it very interesting that we have more than ten (10) different editors, all of whom happen to have voted the same way, who all came here immediately after extended wikibreaks (or in one case, with their very first edit). [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Do I detect some meatpuppetry or stealth canvassing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 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 CommuterHell (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

@CommuterHell: You have to explain how it meets the notability guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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 reliable source but whether it meets general notability guidelines. You don't have to like it, believe it, or agree with it, you just need to decide if it's important/notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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.

  • Comment: [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel] Domenech is relevant to the notoriety of the publication. The fact that he's recognized as a founder of a Wiki-recognized significant political blog speaks to the issue you raised. Misstating the context of my evidence doesn't help convince me your criticism is valid. Dr. Fleischman and yourself would do better to confine yourselves to the argument at hand rather than ad homming the messengers. Calawpro (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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:SIGCOV requirements are a thoroughly negative Politico article and a couple articles from Physics Today and the Washington Post concerning The Federalist's criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson. I worry that it will be impossible to write an article based on that which doesn't violate WP:NPOV standards. I think that keeping the article is really a stretch but I support doing so in the hope that other useful sources will turn up. Obviously I'm also concerned about the apparent foul play, but that doesn't affect my opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on meatpuppetry I think this isn't so much canvassing and meatpuppetry, as the media site mentioning the discussion. Of course that serves as a type of canvassing, but only in so far as any mention of a wikipedia article or discussion in any media venue is. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • Keep: Where does it stop Wikipedia? Your actions are obviously political in nature and not at all independent. You claim to be tolerant and fair with postings and submittals but, like other progressives, you only tolerate other opinions when they agree with yours. Let the discussion fly. You, and your readers, might learn something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranclThomas (talk • contribs)

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

Hmm. All progresives are intolerant. Guess you're not. (Isn't irony ironic?):) Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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 QJX (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Your argument is irrelevant to our notability requirements. Read our actual notability requirements WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What would satisfy the editors in regards to notability. I linked to 4 articles 2 in the Washington Post, one in Slate and on on the Daily Beast in which content presented in The Federalist is core to the story. Granted two are on the Neil DeGrasse Tyson controversy but still it is a story that has been mentioned. The other two are interviews with Rand Paul addressing foreign policy issues. The interviews were then themselves covered by other major publications (and I think both washington Post and Slate meet the reliable source requirement). Others have provide multiple other links, all of which are being dismissed as trivial. So again, what is the standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XLittleP (talk • contribs)
You misunderstand our notability requirements because you are using rehashed arguments from the federalist. Our actual notability requirements are that you need independent secondary sourcing which discuss the topic in detail WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Mentions by other newspaper do not count towards notability, rather significant coverage is what matters, Second Quantization (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[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:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT. Second Quantization (talk) 23:03, 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]
  • Delete as no different from any other conservative website, Fails WEBCRIT and GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:26, 26 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:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposed deletion is obviously a matter of ideological opposition and as such without merit. I am not a Wikipedia contributor (yet) and just made an account today. I was not "canvassed." I read about this on Twitter and, as is my wont, felt compelled to put my .02 in. There's no question that TheFederalist.com is a well-known, widely cited (sometimes in admiration, sometimes in contempt, sometimes just for info) site. As others have noted, there are other political sites with Wikipedia entries that don't have near the reach or visibility of The Federalist.com. Deleting the entry will only provide more justification for those who say Wikipedia is ideologically slanted and therefore not an encyclopedia at all. There are a lot of political websites I won't dignify with a click--many of them are in Wikipedia, as they should be. I would never suggest their entries be deleted because that's not how an encyclopedia should work. (And please note: I am a Wikipedia supporter.) One last point: I don't understand the concern about "canvassing" - you say that input is welcome -- why does it matter how someone is induced to offer input? I do understand the concern about burner/sock puppet/multiple accounts but I'm commenting under my own name, with my own email, and I'm easily discoverable on Twitter and Facebook.KinseyHolley (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)KinseyHolley[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:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT, Second Quantization (talk) 00:03, 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 may be considered as a reliable source. It certainly isn't unreliable just because it is partisan. The reliability of a source depends on the particulars of its use. I don't think what it is being cited for in the article is even controversial. Its attention on thefederalist.com is evidence of the site's notability. Again, being noted is obviously evidence of notability. How much is enough to exceed 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]
  • Keep This AFD is an obvious bit of axegrinding. The Federalist is a notable site--one I personally find loathsome, but notable nonetheless. It is ranked 42nd on Memeorandum's leaderboard (http://www.memeorandum.com/lb )--meaning it's more widely read and cited as a source currently than Mother Jones, MSNBC, Rolling Stone,the Economist and many other clearly notable brands. And the near-consensus on this page supports this---this is not only a bad AFD but a bad faith AFD. · rodii · 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • 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]
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]
  • 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]
  • '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 THF (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  • 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. [26] To put it in perspective, 96% is the same rating that WikiQuote.org earned on Cool Media.[27] — optikos (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thefederalist.com&oldid=627234636"