Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Wire


 * 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. While there were three keep votes, one of them was not based on policy and another seemed to be based solely on the argument put forth by the first keep. As such, I've closed as a no consensus rather than a keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Wire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough. Fails WP:NOT Coderzombie (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC) *


 * keep Article newly created by an SPA, presume WP:PROMO. However, it is what it claims to be, a new, conservative news and commentary website created by a notable journalist and employing other notable journalists. There is some in-depth coverage of it, New York Magazine here:, and although this publication is less than a year old, it is cited regularly by notable, mainstream publications see news search on "the daily wire" + shapiro .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Most of this notability is due to Ben Shapiro as a person (because he is of course notable), not this particular publication, don't you think? Coderzombie (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * keep With the proliferation of internet sites supposedly reporting the news but seldom in an unbiased fashion it is nice to check with Wikipedia to assess just how slanted is their reporting and learn who is behind the site both editorially and financially. It allows the user to then decide how much credibility they want to assign to what they read on these quasi news sites or whether they are worth reading at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpqal (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument should be based on notability of the page as per wikipedia guidelines. Not a valid argument. Coderzombie (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is notable, the page just requires some improvements. Meatsgains (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's notable? There are no WP:RS covering the subject. Coderzombie (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 16 June 2016 (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.