Deletion of Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)

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