Deletion of Thefederalist.com

Comment: The core issue is whether this website has had |significant coverage in |multiple independent ||reliable sources.  The Politico article was also covered another couple comparable website; thus, it did not provide indepth coverage of the federalist.com.  Most of the remaining sources are either not independent or did not provide significant coverage.  That leaves the Media Matters for America--just one in-depth article.  This is not enough at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:WEBCRIT||WP:RS)

Comment: No  |secondary sources demonstrating Wikipedia:Notability|notability. I am willing to change my position to Keep if reliable sources are produced which are dedicated to discussing the Federalist, not passing mentions in articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: as per  failure noted by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: The only thing close to an actual argument is by Coemgenus. As far as I am aware, Media Matters is a partisan source, and thus is not generally reliable for establishing notability. Further, the other source, Physics today, only includes minor coverage, noting the existence of attacks and and links to the federalist. That is all. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/conservative-media-huffpo-ization-of-the-right-101877.html#.VCX0guI-rca politico does not have an independent article devoted to the federalist, the article mentions the federalist but that is all. The requirement of  is "''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself''". This has not been achieved
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: appears to me to meet the |General Notability Guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Rhododendrites: its the case of one event. the site and its fans have certainly done an effective job of ginning up "coverage" about a meaningless story about a meaningless event, but we do not need to participate in the efforts to create a  to house claims against a living person that dont even belong in the article about the person
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: It seems like most of the comments have been about whether this whole deletion discussion has an ulterior motive. I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but as one of the editors who initially voted 'delete' (I changed my vote quickly when a couple sources were found) I would like to assert that I, personally, do not give a crap about the Neil deGrasse Tyson quote allegations, was not aware of them at all before I came here, have never heard of The Federalist, and generally '''do not care''' about this controversy. I find it plausible that other editors are similarly indifferent. People coming here because they've read this: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/26/wikipedia-is-now-trying-to-eliminate-the-federalists-online-entry/, or something similar to it, have, whether they are experienced Wikipedians or not, been ''canvassed'' into this discussion, and mostly seem to arrive with the view that everyone here is aware of The Federalist and wants to suppress it. The truth is that not everyone lives in the same little world. With that understanding, I have to ask people to '''please restrict their comments to the issue at hand''' which is finding sources that, unlike the vast majority of sources cited above, can be argued to meet the requirements of  and , so that hopefully we can get a consensus after all this, and not a no-consensus which looks like where this is going. Currently this discussion has turned up the following possibly-usable sources: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/conservative-media-huffpo-ization-of-the-right-101877.html#.VCgpA81UoZm, http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/02/introducing-the-federalist-a-new-web-magazine-f/198721, http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070. That is all, as far as I can see. (I am not counting the Volokh Conspiracy, which is also mentioned above, because I don't think it can qualify as a reliable source, but this is also debatable.) If anyone thinks they can add something new to this list, please let us know
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Passes , article will need to be expanded upon though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per No inherited notability (), how is the website its-self notable here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Although I changed my vote to "weak keep" I'm concerned that in spite of the large number of insignificant mentions in links provided above the only sources which can plausibly be construed as meeting the  requirements are a thoroughly negative Politico article and a couple articles from Physics Today and the Washington Post concerning The Federalist's criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson. I worry that it will be impossible to write an article based on that which doesn't violate  standards. I think that keeping the article is really a stretch but I support doing so in the hope that other useful sources will turn up. Obviously I'm also concerned about the apparent foul play, but that doesn't affect my opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPOV)

Comment: It exceeds the minimum requirements for inclusion in that its mentions in the Daily Beast article, the Physics Today article, and the Media Matters article are more than trivial (as Wikipedia |defines trivial). The scope of the information about the website itself is relatively minor, and I don't think there is enough out there to write more than a stub at this point, but it is not technically trivial in the sense of ''"newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores."'' Some of the coverage could be described as ''"a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"'', but the standard for notability here is really to weed out websites like your little brother's LiveJournal page. Ultimately, the site is notable because it is being treated as a serious and professional web magazine by well established news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and others, who have used members of Thefederalist.com as commentators for their own TV and print productions (the examples of this can be found in the citations of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: This is a frivolous nomination that should be closed. And Cwobeel should be barred from having anything to do with political articles for his blatant violation of  to the detriment of the Wiki project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: and ban nominator for |pointy, |tendentious abuse of process. - Simon Dodd
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:TE)

Comment: It has a number of well-known writers and is often referred to by external sources, as per . (For example, its cheerfully trollish vendetta against noted former scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been linked to by, among others, a blog at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/ Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?) The argument against keeping the page seems to be "Sure, people may link to its articles and talk about the articles, but they aren't talking about the ''website'', just the articles on it"--I just can't see that that's reasonable. Delete the page and it's going to look like a childish tantrum by Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: One-year-old website has neither the RS nor the |"historical significance" required by the relevant notability guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Tomorrow will be a week that this has festered. Per , "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." Per , it's a waste for me to write anymore at this time. For anti-TheFederalist.com folks, remember that |consensus (or 'no consensus') ''can change''; just come back and fight for this deletion another time when no one is paying attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:NOCONSENSUS||WP:SNOWBALL||WP:CCC)