Deletion of Common Dreams NewsCenter

Comment: Well-known site. Referenced in ''multiple textbooks''. Explicitly mentioned as notable in some form or fashion by Don Imus, Ralph Nader and Bill Moyers (as examples). Cited as a source by other news providers and a number of Wikipedia articles.  is a guideline, not a policy and |should not be used to wikilawyer a legitimate notable site to deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WL)

Comment: without prejudice to recreation with non-trivial sources. Being cited isn't the same as being written about, and I can't see anything more than passing mentions. A lot of "keep" arguments being based on "|This number is big" - notability isn't the same as popularity or prominence on the web
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: no matter who nominated it, it falls short of  and lacks enough reliable secondary sources to sustain a seperate, non-promotional article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: for now, but improve per {{tl|primarysources}}. Bearing in mind that  is a ''guideline'', as is its derivative , this site does not strictly pass that guideline based on what is available online. To my own surprise I could find no full-length articles treating the website as their subject. ''That said'', the citations speak for themselves -- this website not only republishes articles from other sources (using standard newswire contracts, as far as I can tell), its material (a portion of which is original) is republished and cited elsewhere, and it has been ''mentioned'' or ''cited'' by almost every major news organization in the US and UK, either because it was the only stable URL for an article or because it was the only online source, period, for some. We can certainly |verify that much about it. The website predates Wikipedia (not that being a non-profit is an automatic pass) and predates virtually everything known today as a blog, and has a high Alexa ranking. (Its importance may be fading in the blog era.) Deleting an article such as this one simply because by interpreting our rules down to the last dot on the i really is making Wikipedia worse and the first time I would say that  applies. I suggest a three-month grace period for a robust source search including via the publisher (who surely knows when he has been interviewed/profiled
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:IAR)

Comment: Interviews with Bill Moyers, cited by New York Times, Portland Press Herald, Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Willamette Week, and Fox news. Plus, used in text books. EDIT:  is met by all this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)