Deletion of Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Comment: I would submit that sources are both  and appropriate as they adequately and correctly frame the usage and validate its definition within popular media.  The sources are as much for usage as content.  It is not relevant whether Farah or the Clinton administration committed the act, but rather that the issue was framed by the category.  The MRC reference was intended to demonstrate that common usage of the term exists and place it in the proper context.  Am I missing something here?  This is not an article to prove conspiracy journalism exists, but rather that a specific and unique category of this classification does.  I am surprised why the SPLC reference, number 12, was classified as unreliable, this stikes me as a solid standard to support the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)