Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)
Not that it should matter, but the above discussion makes it clear that at least some commenters think that membership or participation in DU renders one's discussion somehow less valid: For the record, I am not involved in DU in any way.  That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess.  The previous nomination was a Speedy Keep, and I can see nothing that has changed which should overturn that decision.  There has been substantive coverage in ''Huffington Post'', ''Wired News'', ''Newsbusters'', and ''Daily Caller''.  Again, I feel I need to pre-emptively note that it is entirely unremarkable that a contributor to the new-media web-based news ecosystem primarily generates coverage in other parts of that same news ecosystem.  Their new-media web-based nature does not mean they are not .  A full debate about the reliability of this type of source (oh no! not blogs!) is obviously beyond the bounds for a simple AfD discussion.  That said, the above discussion is in itself evidence that this has grown beyond a simple AfD discussion. By the criteria advocated above, it is doubtful any web-based news media would qualify for notability, no matter how many people depended upon it for information
— User:Eggishorn, 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)