Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off the Kuff


 * 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Off the Kuff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable blog lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. red dog six (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep- Blog is absolutely notable. Is regularly referenced and mentioned in the 2nd most circulated (on Sundays) newspaper in the United States. Blogger even hosts his own miniblog under the newspaper's masthead. He essentially does what Ezra Klein does, for a bigger paper. Yet the snobbery of the East only thinks one of them is notable. Receives mentions from other huge Texas political power players such as Texas Tribune and Texas Monthly. The precedent has been set on political blogs in Texas with Burnt Orange Report. If BOR is considered notable, then Off the Kuff should be considered notable as well. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment-Notability is defined by Wikipedia standards in WP:N and WP:WEB. Trivial mentions do not support notability. There are no precedents in Wikipedia, only compliance with standards.  If the article you referenced does not meet Wikipedia criteria, then it should be nominated for deletion. red dog six  (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment-The mentions are not trivial, the reputable news sources write featured stories on news items the blog has broken. That isn't trivial. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- I think you are mistaken in the use of the word trivial. The stories the news organizations create may not be trivial, but the mention of the blog is. red dog six  (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- Again, you are the one mistaken. The second largest newspaper in the country broke a story because of an article from this blog. It was not a trivial mention. The paper, as well as other notable publications (Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly & Burnt Orange Report), regularly mention the blog. Further, the Chronicle syndicates stories from the blog. A one-time occurrence would constitute a trivial mention, but recurring mentions, even fleeting ones, establish notability. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please provide Please provide the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in the article. I suggest you read WP:GNG for clarification.  red dog six  (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -Ditto. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -Also, may we just assume the notability of Texpatriate is also being established here so we must not copy and paste everything we write? It is getting too redundant. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - sure on the Texpatriate question, but you still have not provided the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in each of the articles - or as least pointed us in that direction. red dog six  (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Gets quoted enough by mainstream media, including Time magazine, that its notable.  D r e a m Focus  18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep appears to pass our web guidelines. For example, this is a solid source. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:53, 10 September 2013 (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.