Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Free Press


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After the discounting the IPs and WP:SPAs with their walls of text, there is consensus that this is not a notable subject.  Sandstein  11:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Citizen Free Press

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article on web aggregator with no evidence of notability under WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:WEBCRIT, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Various clear non-RSes in the original (YouTube etc) were removed. Of what remains, Axios is the closest to an RS here; Washington Examiner is questionable per WP:RSP; Mediaite is a passing mention. I went looking for other sources in a basic WP:BEFORE, and found only passing mentions in fringe publications. Asking on the talk page a week ago did not elicit any better coverage (the article creator names several clear non-RSes on the talk page as the best coverage available). There's no evidence this site is noteworthy in any regard. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb, rather than one that establishes why this site is notable.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Very simply, this is why Citizen Free Press is notable -- it gets MORE U.S. monthly pageviews than any other conservative website in the United States, according to Similar Web.

In and of itself, that makes the site notable. More U.S. monthly pageviews than Breitbart, Zero Hedge and Gateway Pundit. Also more U.S. monthly pageviews than Politico, WSJ, ABC News, NBC News, The Hill and many other sites, all of which have Wikipedia pages. And no one is attempting to delete those pages.

A reporter from the Washington Examiner said this about Citizen Free Press when an attempt was made to delete the Wikipedia page last week.

"Citizen Free Press is absolutely notable and watched by millions, including several Washington news people and lawmakers. Its traffic is amazing, better than Huffington Post, Politico, WSJ, NBC, CBS etc. What's more they offer the most free-wheeling comment section in the media and it's constantly policed by the editor. As for the Washington Examiner website and weekly print magazine, I've been a reporter there (at Washington Examiner) for years and we employ dozens of the best columnists and reporters and editors who have come from CNN, U.S. News and elsewhere. To suggest that the Washington Examiner isn't respected is silly. Just read the Wiki page on us. And we have written about Citizen Free Press, you bet, because it matters."

The main argument for deletion seems to be that there haven't been enough articles written about Citizen Free Press. This is untrue. Two separate profiles in Washington Examiner. The site is relatively new. Give it some time and there will be several more articles written about its explosive traffic growth. 124 million U.S. pageviews in October. That is a huge number and shows how 'notable' the site has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:844A:592F:4ED1:4451 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC) — 2601:801:200:787:844A:592F:4ED1:4451 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Web hits aren't counted for Wikipedia notability - they're too easy to fake. WP:WEBCRIT is pretty clear: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Do you have independent reliable sources covering Citizen Free Press? It sounds like you don't - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete does not pass WP:N or WP:NCORP. I can only find WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in independent and reliable secondary sources, and I would expect significantly more coverage for a corporation. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. I don't see any redirect targets either. If anyone scrounges up sources or discovers an appropriate redirect target then ping me. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further inspection I've realized this is less of a news company and more of a news feed so WP:NCORP probably isn't applicable, but I still don't think it passes WP:N or WP:WEB. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE -- To answer Tipsy Elephant -- The site is a populist news website that posts approximately 100 stories per day. Of that 100, usually about 80 stories are written by the CFP team. The other 20 stories are direct outbound links to other websites, like Drudge. CFP is the largest open-platform anonymous news website for commenting. The site gets approximately 20,000 reader comments per day. It's very simplistic and has ZERO advertising.

There is no denying its size. CFP traffic is directly measured by Alexa and Similar Web.

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/citizenfreepress.com

https://www.similarweb.com/website/citizenfreepress.com/

When CFP links to a story on another website, such as Mediaite, it can drive upwards of 200,000 readers to that link. '''That is why Mediaite mentioned it favorable alongside Drudge. Mediatie editors know firsthand how much traffic a link on CFP can drive.'''

The original Wikipedia listing for CFP was much longer and more complete. All of the links were approved by multiple Wikiepedia editors, who had absolutely no objections. The page was solid for several months. Then David Gerard stumbled across the page and gutted it, removing 5 of the 8 sources. Even Governor Ron DeSantis, whether you like him or not, mentioned CFP first as his news source, and that was deleted.

Here is the link to the page as it stood after it was approved, and before David's deletions.

[|Citizen Free Press -- Original Wikipedia Page]

The sources that are being discounted and have been removed from the original Wikipedia entry, include the Washington Examiner, Just The News, and PJ Media, and all three of those sites are approved by Google News. So they are not far right wing sites by any means. Citizen Free Press stories are also indexed by Google News. You can see them at this link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acitizenfreepress.com&biw=1120&bih=605&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AOaemvJ_TiipmFPsm_gzR_zNMJhZjxFRGQ%3A1637129511969&ei=J52UYd_QOsas0PEP04OnuA4&oq=site%3Acitizenfreepress.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2230.9697.0.9950.27.26.1.0.0.0.154.2419.19j6.25.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.6.616...0i273k1j0i67k1j0i512i433k1j0i512i433i131k1j0i512k1j0i433i67k1j0i433k1.0.ZZldRwlQLLc

I propose that the CFP wiki page be restored to its original version, which was approved by multiple Wikipedia editors.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:50ff:816f:12dd:c3ed (talk) — 2601:801:200:787:50ff:816f:12dd:c3ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It was full of sources that clearly failed WP:RS. I ask you again: bring sources that meet WP:RS. At the moment you're just posting multiple paragraphs of repeating the same claims that don't meet WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the article was reviewed at AfC by and . JavaHurricane declined the draft with the comment "Source no. 2 is an interview, i.e. not independent of the subject. Third source is a mention and not significant coverage. I'm not sure if 4 is a reliable source. 5 again a mention in a listing. 6 a single mention. Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject". Right after the draft was declined it appears that DGG accepted the draft. Was there a particular reason why you accepted the draft DGG? Which sources do you believe demonstrate that the subject passes WP:N, WP:WEB, or WP:NCORP? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't accept at AfC only when I think something is clearly notable, I accept when I think it has a decent chance of notability at AfD. Establishing notability for newspapers and similar publications is difficult even for important ones, and we are usually quite flexible--it's important that we have an article for sources that might be used in a WP article so people can judge what they are. . Therefore,  I tend to be very inclusive for new publications of minority and small groups. Others will either agree, or not.  DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't WP:NCORP apply to news companies and wouldn't that require a stricter judgment of notability rather than a more flexible one? Also, would you mind linking to the specific sources you believe demonstrate notability? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * we make the rules; we make the itnerpretations and the exceptions. We have always been very inclusive for newspapers, broadcast stations, and publishers. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, considering our mission.  DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. on the basis of my argument that even this minimal sourcing is eenough in the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Passing mentions and questionable sources don't add up to satisfying WP:NORG. I wouldn't object in principle to a redirect, if an appropriate target were identified, but a stand-alone article just isn't warranted. In the past, I've been sympathetic to arguments like "having a page about a website helps our readers contextualize any citations to it". But this is a news aggregator which we'd have no reason to cite, even if it didn't wear its political bias on its sleeve. So, that genre of argument just doesn't apply here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I’ve expressed before, I believe the site meets notability standards. I'm not sure how it can be argued that the site doesn't meet notability standards when accounting for the top web traffic measuring analysis companies which all find Citizen Free Press among the most trafficked news websites in the world. Citizen Free Press has been profiled by several reputable news websites and name dropped by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The site, its traffic, and its community have done nothing but grow in size over the past year. It is clear that one editor in particular has made it his personal mission to deface what I believe was a fair and accurate representation of a major player in the conservative news business. Not sure how it is resolved but frustrated by the state of the page as is and would like to see it revolved in a more balanced manner which recognizes the size and scope of the site while fairly describing its essential nature.  ClearPill ( talk ) 12:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearPill11 (talk • contribs)
 * Traffic numbers don't imply notability. Plain and simple. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per this "keep" is not in line with guidance and policy. Do you, or do you not, have clear WP:RSes which would demonstrate notability under WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:WEBCRIT, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline? That's all I ask - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

'''David, under your logic, hundreds of Wikipedia pages for news websites/media companies would have to be removed. News websites aren't newsworthy or notable for any other reason than their size and web traffic.'''

Why is Zero Hedge notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

Why is Gateway Pundit notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

Why is Politico notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

I could go on and on.

When a news website gets 128 million pageviews per month as CFP does, it is automatically notable.

Again, the only notable factor of any news website, it traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:5992:A023:4348:5CA2 (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, the only notable factor of any news website, is traffic.

These are the October traffic numbers for the top 12 U.S. Media Websites

NYT 607 Million

DRUDGE 562 Million

WASH POST 279 Million

NY POST 173 Million

CITIZEN FREE PRESS 128 Million

HUFF POST 112 Million

POLITICO 107 Million

NBC MSNBC 76 Million

THE HILL 72 Million

ZERO HEDGE 64 Million

CBS NEWS 58 Million

LA TIMES 49 Million

The Citizen Free Press Wikipedia absolutely should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:5992:a023:4348:5ca2 (talk) — 2601:801:200:787:5992:a023:4348:5ca2  (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Please read WP:SIGNATURE and WP:GTD before making further comments. I would also strongly recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AFDFORMAT. I would also suggest that you refrain from making any further accusations against the nominator and instead WP:AGF. I would also strongly recommend reading WP:N and WP:WEB before making further comments about web traffic being the only indicator of notability on Wikipedia. Similarly, pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF does not help your case, especially when Wikipedia pages like Politico clearly have significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources (i.e. multiple sources from the NYT, The Guardian, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. dedicated specifically to discussing Politico). TipsyElephant (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.