Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Thinker


 * 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. I think notability was clearly established by Wafulz and no other reason was given for deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The American Thinker

 * — (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:WEB &mdash;Ashley Y 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom :: mikm t  19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable! Xiner (talk, email) 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Before instantly claiming non-notability, check for sources. This online paper has been mentioned numerous times in various news sources:
 * Conservative voice
 * Conservative voice
 * Calgary Sun
 * [ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53548 WorldNetDaily]
 * Lifenews.com
 * Assertion (likely true) that Rush Limbaugh uses them as a source. I got a Google news hit from that site, but it needs a member login
 * Anyway, try to concentrate on reliable sources and verifiability before quickly passing judgement on notability. --Wafulz 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * May pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB as RealClearPolitics regularly publishes American Thinker columns because I am unsure if RealClearPolitics would satisfy that requirement and to avoid WP:COI I stay neutral.--RWR8189 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Im not sure whether Real Clear Politics is sufficiently notable for criterion 3, as note 7 down the bottom says "Such distributions should be nontrivial". However, I can confirm that the articles are republished there as I randomly picked an entry from your search query  and it originates on americanthinker.com.  A "Christopher Chantrill" is an author that was recently publishing articles on both American Thinker and  Real Clear Politics at the same time, so Im concerned that these two websites are not entirely independent. John Vandenberg 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain I'm not sure, perhaps this is notable after all. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Only assertion of notibility it that it is sometimes mentioned on a show that is notable, which does not make itself noteable. Not other sources or claims to notibility provided.--Dacium 06:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough, given the evidence. ShivaDaDestroyer 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, popular source. Tim Long 08:26, 24 January 2007 (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.