Deletion of The Motley Moose

Comment: Blog-froth, not meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Once again, this keep argument totally fails to inform us how this website is notable in light of  and  guidelines. To repeat, we're looking for reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, not coverage in other blogs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:WEB)

Comment: It's close to a db-web speedy: the only reliabls source (in either the current version or Ka64q2's preferred version) is the Prospect article, and the mention there fails the "non-trivial" test of . And it has  problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Going through the references, all I see are blog posts and links to articles that don't even mention the site. There's one trivial mention in there. But  and  require '''significant''' or '''non-trivial''' coverage for inclusion. Article clearly fails notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:WEB)

Comment: for lack of sources meeting |the notability criteria for web content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I cant see where this ''blog'' has been given any notability in real, mainstream  http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22Motley+Moose%22 as opposed to internets sites
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: For those skipping the above breakdown, strong keep. References are notable and within the standards of eb and Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: I'm not seeing any substantive that meets . Past that, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the history of Motley Moose, as there isn't a whole lot of difference between that version that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose) and the current iteration of the article. I personally think this is a G4 case, but I'll leave that to the closing admin's discretion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: into the articles of the notable contributors to the blog. Perhaps the sources that are not available on line do provide significant third party coverage that would make the Moose a notable article in itself. However, based on the continued resistance of the supporters to acknowledge that " They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is both trivial AND |not third party is sufficient evidence for me to question their analysis of the other sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Given those bloggers involved, the subject matter and the current level of heightened political interest and the rising prominence of blogs in the news media world I have to add in  in regards to finding sources. Which seems likely, again, do to the nature of the media, the players and content. What remains is neutral writing and legwork, aka clean-up. There seems to be a bias against blogs and bloggers in general and this might be a part of that. Blogs certainly can be reliable sources and more are catching on to becoming reputable sources and many morph into real world notability. This is an emerging field. Once the discussions closes I encourage those interested to dig through deleted content to see if some of the content and cites are salvageable and repurposeable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: It's simple, this article isn't the sole focus of any third party |reliable sources as required per .  There's lots of |puffery going on here but nothing that shows how the blog ''itself'' has been the object of discussion. I highly suspect a conflict of interest with the ardent creator and defender
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:PUFF)

Comment: Fails the basic criterion of , which requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: of the references provided, only three are independent from the topic of the article. (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10398http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/11/215330/858/425/595547 and a student newspaper) A mention in a student newspaper does not confer notability. And the other two references mention the blog in passing. There are no third-party, secondary, reliable sources describing this topic. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: WP:SOAP|advert for |non-notable, |unverifiable subject, per previous AfD (which would have survived review were it not for author's withdrawal just prior to a negative result) and nom's helpful reference analysis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)