Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liberty Conservative


 * 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. There has been disruption and attempts to remove others' comments by SPAs. These have been discounted. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Liberty Conservative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The two-year-old news website has a passing mention in Bloomberg as a result of a fake news conspiracy that duped the site, but that's really all. I can't find any source that covers the site substantially. Most of those listed in the "Notable contributors" section are actually only one-time or guest contributors. See: WP:WEB Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - Based on the influx of "keep" votes I'm going to assume some of you were sent here to vote to save this article. For those of you new to Wikipedia, this is not a voting process: Simple votes that are not based on Wikipedia policy (specifically Wikipedia's notability policy) will not be considered by the closing admin.
 * Untrue: claims I have a grudge against The LC. I have never contributed any writing to The Liberty Conservative nor do I have any disputes or objections to The LC staff or their editorial views. I have twice been offered to contribute, but I have not yet, nor do I work for any direct LC competitors (possible exception: Heat Street). I am having a productive and level-headed discussion with The LC's Rocco Lucente about possibly expanding the article (as I am always happy to do). My suggestion to anyone asked to vote "keep" here: stand down and talk to Rocco. There's no need to get excited about this. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * DO NOT Delete No reason to delete this page. It meets the notability criteria and has plenty of sources and many notable contributors. Wykydron (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo89 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Only trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage giving an indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Regarding the allegedly notable contributors WP:NWEB states "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it" AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEPThis article was only listed for deletion because Mark Schierbecker (or Kayla as he occasionally goes by) has a vendetta against the company for refusing to publish a piece he once submitted to them.187.188.117.247 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — 187.188.117.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * MUST KEEP This article on The Liberty Conservative encompasses the details and publishing history of an online publication that not only expands conversation on politically and culturally relevant topics, but which most effectively serves to illustrate the vibrant and significant voices of the Liberty movement - an integral part of the American ideological spectrum. Utilizing the same philosophy as Wikipedia - decentralized knowledge and insight coming together to form a coherent whole - The Liberty Conservative provides an invaluable resource for those whose values encompass the rightward side of the American political scale, and who view Liberty and Freedom as the linchpins of America. To delete the article is to silence those voices - to censor them - and dismiss them as unworthy of inclusion; values unbecoming of this group. vdavidiuk 04:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP policy WP:PROMOTION and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is clearly promotional, impossible to edit into a neutral point of view WP:NPOV due to edit warring. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP It appears my signed comment was deleted among others. Again this is a well sourced article and could be improved but should not be deleted. The calls for deletion are either personally or politically motivated and it is plainly obvious. Hiding behind Wikipedia rules to cover that up doesn't change the fact, nor does deleting comments of people who wish to keep the article. --Gwax23 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for this newish website with a very young staff of journalists who appear to be non-notable at this point in their careers. I did run a couple of news searches, but found nothing much (If someone sources it, feel free to ping me to revisit).  Newbies perplexed by this discussion may want to look at The Federalist (website), a page about another newish, conservative, online publication, for comparison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Just took a look at Alexa, its webranking was around 350,000. Maybe it's a WP:TOOSOON situation, as stated above. South Nashua (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: first off, the article itself makes no claim of notability: it doesn't explain why the website is notable. That's a big red flag, especially for such a young publication. More importantly, I can't find significant third-party coverage, and its impact seems to be minimal. --Slashme (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (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.