Deletion of OpEdNews (3rd nomination)

Comment: Did not find significant coverage in reliable sources to meet . Almost all of the references I was able to check that are currently cited in the article provide trivial coverage of the topic, as a minor part of a single sentence. The two articles that much of the above discussion seem to focus on are from http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A ''The Intelligencer'' and http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709 Financial Express. I agree the first provides significant coverage; the second is a single brief paragraph. Even if I accepted both as significant coverage, one of the arguments above is that these two sources thereby satisfy the requirements of . I take  to be much more fluid, with no specific number or types or lengths of reliable sources, whereas the argument above seems to be that two sources always meets the multiple independent reliable source requirement because two is "multiple". Different editors interpret GNG differently, but I think such a literal, most minimal interpretation ignores its intent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: A website containing articles written by |persons expert or notable in their fields, itself quoted in and referred to in multiple reliable sources meets  and  even without these other sources not devoting articles solely dedicated to being of or about it.  That reliable sources feel |it worth mentioning or quoting, we do  Wikipedia readers a dis-service by ignoring its existence within its field. In a balanced encyclopedia, all views must be covered, even |if not respected
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RSOPINION||WP:RSOPINION||WP:USEBYOTHERS||WP:USEBYOTHERS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)