Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Pundit


 * 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 no consensus. slakr \ talk / 12:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rebel Pundit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This site gets passing mentions only, and likely fails WP:GNG. Sammy1339 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that this CBS article constitutes more than a passing mention, as the article's topic is a video made by this website (Rebel Pundit). This The Hill   article is also more than a passing mention. These two secondary sources, coupled with the others in the article, lead me to think the website meets WP:GNG. Tucsontammy (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Tucsontammy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Kolbasz (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These two sources discuss the video posted by the website, but hardly mention the website itself. Kraxler (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Logical1004 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Kraxler (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - only trivial mentions after the release of a single video, no more coverage of this website anywhere else before or after. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". This criteria excludes trivial mention, such as the current sources. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this article squeaks it past WP:WEBCRIT. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How can one paragraph from one article be even remotely near the threshold of WEBCRIT? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The whole article, not just one paragraph, is about Rebel Pundit's video. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even granting that as true for the sake of argument, the Wikipedia article is about Rebel Pundit, not the video. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then I guess I'd say the coverage that the website's video received helped establish the notability of the website itself. FWIW, I added another source to the article as well . Like I said, IMO the coverage I've found squeaks this article past WP:WEBCRIT. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2015 (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.