Deletion of Vodkapundit

Comment: It took me all of thirty seconds to find mentions in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042400999_pf.html Washington Post and http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/30/mccain_conservatives/print.html Salon.com that support any assertion of notability. Here's the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/4279229.stm BBC and the http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15604163_ITM Philly Inquirer, for good measure. This nomination seems a little |pointy, to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: being quoted is NOT "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". That would consist of newspapers actually publishing facts ''about'' Vodkapundit, not just some lines ''quoted from'' it. A major point of the notability guidelines is to ensure that an article about X can actually be written based on third-party sources (not based on what X says about himself on his own website with a side mention that "The ''Big City Times'' says X is important"). If a mention of X in a third-party source does not enable you to do this, then it doesn't contribute to meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I think Ks64q2 makes an excellent point.  There might be a case for a WP article about the ''blogger(s)'' themselves (Will Collier was directly quoted no less than 4 times in that BBC article and managed to score the photo quote box over other much more mainstream figures), but the blog itself doesn't seem to meet .  Why not start again there?  Half the current article is about Green's personal health anyway and there's already a redirect in place for Stephen Green (blogger).  Also found http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/the_other_mccain_fausta_wertz.html this reference to Green appearing in a radio show which might help establish notability under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)