Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthout


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Truthout

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails all facets of WP:WEB. The only media attention received is based off of the Jason Leopold affair regarding Karl Rove, and the attention is about Leopold and not really Truthout. Situation is and should be handled in the Leopold article. A Google News search shows no sources about Truthout and no meaningful linking to Truthout from reliable, credible sources. Should be deleted. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gene93k
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I count over 1,010 entries on google news ABOUT Truthout and over 200 articles FROM news source truthout including two spotlights which very few publications achieve. Truthout is a well known news source, is ranked in the top 100 at technorati and has a pagerank of 8.

Your claims are completely unfounded Gene93k.

NotalChord
 * No, you count over 1100 "news" sources that cite Truthout, nearly all of which are "independent"-style unverifiable publications that do not have the same sort of cachet that your typical reliable sources have. As for your second link, those are all Truthout articles - not about Truthout.  The claims I have made are not unfounded, you're simply verifying what I've said in my nomination. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Truthout has gotten media attention lately. Stories by Truthout were picked up by CBS's "60 Minutes" and Democracy Now!. Truthout contributor Beverly Bell has been reporting regularly from post-earthquake Haiti since January. Bell broke a story about Haitian farmers banding together to reject corporate domination, burning millions of dollars worth of genetically modified seeds donated by agrigiant Monsanto. The story went viral on Digg and Facebook and got tens of thousands of views. A story Truthout reported in June 2009, based on a little-known document that indicated George W. Bush had authorized the use of dogs and other methods to intimidate prisoners in Iraq, was picked up by MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and led lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, to begin making inquiries into these interrogation techniques.

There is probably a lot more evidence that other media sources pay attention. Google News picks up Truthout articles every day. You can see for your self here. Matt43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Truthout is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity in California. You can verify that they exist using Guidestar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Bill Moyers also cited a Truthout article my scholar Henry Giroux in his September 4, 2009 broadcast --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The CBS and Moyer ones are legitimate links, for sure, but they still are not articles about Truthout as noted. That the CBS link is to Leopold should give us pause as well. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Leopold is Truthout's Deputy Managing Editor. The article was a Truthout one. Truthout itself can't write articles, only its writers can. ;) NotalChord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a section with sourcing verifying Truthout's impact in credible media sources. Check out the Impact section and see if it puts your minds at ease. Matt43 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ins't notable. Sourcing sketchy. Lionelt (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Truthout is a pretty well-known and respected progressive news site. Greg Palast, Henry Giroux, Bill Moyers, Dean Baker and others are regular contributors. They have over 20,000 followers on facebook, they are in the Top 100 at technorati, top 6,000 sites on the new according to quantcast and have done a lot of high profile work including on-camera interviews with Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jon Kiraku and others. They are on the front page of digg (top in all categories) and reddit weekly and google news has brought several of their pages into the "Spotlight" area. They have hundreds of thousands of subscribers to their mailing list and raise about 1 million a year in donations. The site is definitely notable. 108.0.156.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
 * — Matt43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nice work on that. I vote KEEP NotalChord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, KEEP 108.0.156.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
 * You added many non-credible sources that I will be removing. CNN in particular did not use Truthout, but just reported the same thing.  Democracy Now is not credible.  Etc. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to tell everyone who created Democracy Now! that they're wrong then. Also, CNN did link to Truthout on the article that you deleted. I guess I'll have to dig it up again. Matt43 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC) CNN did link to Truthout. It is a very small link under their video, but they put it in there because Truthout broke the story. Matt43 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find any truthout links at that CNN post. Where is it? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP, truthout is obviously notable. It is a very prominent progressive voice. Houseofbath (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed - this is what it says below the video box: "Added On May 24, 2010 CNN's Abbie Boudreau interviews Scott West, former special agent with the EPA, about two other oil spills involving BP. Show Pages - Special Investigations Unit - CNN.com t r u t h o u t" and the spaced out "Truthout" is a link the the Truthout homepage. Matt43 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Houseofbath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree with Matt. Ed, you're dead wrong on this one and I think you're behaving recklessly and ignorantly. 76.87.57.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Okay, for whatever reason my flashblock didn't allow it to show. It is an entirely noncontextual link, however.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

'''Ed Wood's Wig is wholly biased, underscored by his comments, in seeking the deletion of Truthout. That in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia's terms and must be dealt with at a higher level. If Ed Wood is applying this standard to Truthout then he should swiftly apply the same standard to Alternet and CommonDreams and seek deletion of those entries, since neither is regularly cited by what he deems to be "credible" sources. That goes for numerous other articles on Wikipedia as well. Credible is subjective. What he may personally see as a non credible sources may very well be looked at as highly credible by many others. His comments about Democracy Now alone further demonstrate how utterly biased and out of touch he is. Democracy Now is one of the most well respected independent news sources on the web and is beloved by veteran journalists. Amy Goodman, the show's host, is widely known and cited time and again.
 * It should be noted at this point that, with the exception of Lionel, all people chiming in either have registered today or have no contributions outside of this debate or the article in question. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Ed is a sad, sad man. Deleting Truthout is ridiculous and you are a fool for suggesting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

'''For Ed Wood's Wig, this smacks as a personal vendetta. Again, a violation of Wikipedia's terms. One only need to look at Ed Wood's history as a Truthout obsessive to gain enough evidence to see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 
 * Common Dreams might deserve a second look, but Alternet is pretty worthy. The focus, however, is on this article.  My "history as a Truthout obsessive" being limited to a handful of edits over the last few days, though?  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Truthout is bigger than alternet in many ways and definitely has more journalistic impact. If Truthout be considered for deleting so should Alternet, Commondreams, Truthdig, Buzzflash, and others 76.87.57.127 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources disagree. Except for Buzzflash, which rightfully lacks an article. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Alexa, Truthout is ranked as the 5,066th website in the US by reach. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/truthout.org

According to Quantcast, Truthout is ranked as the 5,516 website in the US. http://www.quantcast.com/truthout.org

According to Technorati, Truthout is one of the Top 100 Overall news sites on the net. http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=truthout&x=0&y=0

According to Compete, Truthout has recently surpasssed Alternet in unique visitors. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/truthout.org+alternet.org/

According to Facebook, Truthout's Page has more fans, faster ads, and higher engagement than Alternet's. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Truthout/83865976093 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/AlterNet/17108852506?ref=ts

(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 76.87.57.127 (talk)

Ed Wood's Wig - I updated the article where you asked for citations. Thanks for pointing out those needed citations, I think the entry for Truthout is stronger because of it. I hope this will help to allay your concerns. Matt43 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't, really- my concerns are of notability and of articles about Truthout.  Leopold's false rpeorting aside, such articles don't exist, and the linking from mainstream reports are haphazard at best.  It should still be deleted. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Ed Wood's Wig, your argument is weak and based on the evidence supplied here it's abundantly clear that Truthout has enormous value and you are violating Wikipedia rules by being inherently biased. The votes to keep truthout outnumber those who want to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not done via vote, but by a discussion of consensus based on the relevant policies (in this case, WP:WEB, [[WP:N, and whether reliable sources discuss the subject. Truthout fails all of these.  You've brought up other similar articles like Alternet - you'll note that those meet those standards while Truthout does not.  If you have information that shows that Truthout meets the Wikipedia inclusion policies, you should share them or the article will be deleted. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you, Ed Wood's Wig, to supply articles ABOUT every other news sources that is listed on Wikipedia and for those articles that fail to meet the same standards you apply to Truthout should be deleted. You are now on record stating that is the litmus test you are applying here. Each and every comment you make reeks of bias. Perhaps if you disclosed your identity we could see if perhaps you are a disgruntled former employee or someone who was affiliated with truthout. The point being that your argument for deletion does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be based on an issue that is much more personal in nature and your comment, "Leopold's false reporting aside," is clear cut evidence of that.

The fact of the matter is this: Truthout is widely read and cited by numerous mainstream and independent outlets and the people on this discussion thread have made their case by providing us with the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet they haven't provided any links that show it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Please read up on those and help us out. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't have the time or the inclination to work to improve the article, but simply clicking the Find sources - news books links above shows there is no shortage of available sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except, again, the sources you note are either all unreliable self-published sources or (with very few exceptions) about the Leopold-Rove situation that can be, should be, and is handled at the Jason Leopold article already. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment - so far, we have a large volume of SPA support, but non-SPAs are only the nominator plus one delete and one keep. We need some more independent views. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Has sources, a quick Google News search brings an adequate amount of sources Fast Company (magazine), Charleston City Paper, and I am pretty sure that there are more. --Edward130603 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first link does not go anywhere - the only Fast Company link I can find in Google is a one sentence referral to an interview about BP, which is not about Truthout. The Charleston City Paper is nothing more than a link to a book review, and is not about Truthout.  Per WP:WEB, these do not confer notability.  The only independent sources in the article, as I have stated, are about Jason Leopold and Truthout's situation with Rove.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. With regard to notability, there seems to be specific, detailed coverage of Truthout by the Columbia Journalism Review and a bit by Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post . Also, journalistic blogs of varying affiliations have some coverage as well: Salon (,  & ), National Review  and Crooks and Liars . The main topic of those articles seems to be one particular controversy (with Leopold)—but I oppose merging, because Truthout is presently independent of him, and would not be appropriately covered in his article. However, the referencing in the current article is abominable, and needs to be purged—it's mostly primary sources and irrelevant links. And given the controversial nature of the subject matter, the large quantity of unsourced and biased material should be stricken—that would knock the article down to a stub, in my estimation. TheFeds 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the "specific, detailed coverage" is about Leopold, not really about Truthout. And you're right - the referencing is abominable because there aren't any sources available to source the article with.  A merge is inappropriate, a delete is the only appropriate thing because the article would then only have information about the Leopold/Rove conflict due to the lack of reliable sources. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple more media sources: ("Truthout, a non-profit news organization that operates a website and distributes a daily newsletter" is a sourced statement that can be used to create the opening line of a stub article) and  (which is coverage not related to Leopold). In terms of information about their charitable status, objectives, officers, activities and financial information, we can also cite their IRS form 990s (2009; others available at that site), which, although primary source documents, are submitted to the IRS under penalty of perjury and open to public inspection (hence they meet the "reliably published" requirement of WP:NOR). I'd say there are enough sources to have an article—but that it would necessarily take a different form than what we have now. TheFeds 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your Ottawa Citizen piece, however, does not fall under the auspices of conferring notability per WP:WEB, as it is clearly one of the exceptions: "(3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses." If Truthout had numerous multiple articles about Truthout to work off of and confer notability, you're right - we could use that.  We do not have those sources, though, even now with the worthy legwork you've put in.  Same with your DirectMag piece-  the story is not about Truthout, but about email, spam, and ISPs.  The IRS statement, whether provided under penalty of perjury or not, is still self-published, and would open the door to all non-profits being included.  We still have yet to see any sources that confer notability on Truthout. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I struck a portion of the above comment, because it is plausible that the Ottawa Citizen article used the opening line of the WP article as it appeared on that date practically verbatim. (I hate it when that happens.) TheFeds 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur that the Citizen piece does not confer notability; nor does the self-published IRS form. The DirectMag article seems to be valid towards establishing notability. TheFeds 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? It's not about Truthout, it's not the subject of the article, so it doesn't meet #1 of WP:WEB.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that no one is calling out Ed Wood's Wig for his continued bias and ridiculous rationale for deleting Truthout. Since when do Wiki articles on media organizations cite articles written ABOUT said media organization? That is complete BS. Maybe articles about MSM publications like the NYT but where are the articles ABOUT alternet and mother jones and buzzflash and common dreams? Where are the discussion threads about deleting those articles? I am unaware of people sitting around writing articles saying "hey the NYT is great!" or "hey look what alternet did!" Why is Ed Wood's g singling out Truthout? And why does he or she continue to deny that the beef he or she has is about Leopold? It's so utterly apparent! Has Ed Wood's Wig applied the same broad brush to the NYT which reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and relied on the shoddy reporting of Judith Miller? This is really a ridiculous attempt to breathe life into a four year old story about Karl Rove. People have moved on from it as evidenced by the numerous links that cite truthout and Leopold's work in general, including this story in the NYT from earlier this week http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/the-justice-department-seeks-evidence-of-crimes-in-the-gulf/?partner=rss&emc=rss

surely, if these reputable publications find value in the content truthout publishes other do as well. But Ed Wood's Wig, who wears his or her bias on his or her sleeve, wants to make it difficult by saying there aren't any articles ABOUT truthout. Well, Ed Wood's Wig, people don't sit around all day writing articles about news organizations. And it's not the fault of truthout if there aren't any articles of that nature. But if you delete truthout you must begin an exhaustive review of every other article on news organizations and begin the process of deleting them as well if they do not meet the same standard applied to truthout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought up alternet buzzflash and common dreams. Whee are the articles ? where are the articles about those publications? I see none. And I expect you to respond with links to all three not just alternet. I think this needs to be taken to higher authorities at Wikipedia. Ed Wood's Wig is biased and no one person should have this much power particularly if they are so biased so as not to even consider any other argument than his or her own self righteous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Link please so we can all see who the reputable source is that wrote about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Buzzflash does not have an article and will not likely get one for a while. Common Dreams has an article, but probably isn't noteworthy either.  I will be looking at that one next. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — 76.251.72.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Of who wrote about who? Common Dreams?  I don't see much of any, but I haven't done searching yet like I did for Truthout.  If there aren't articles about Common Dreams, I'll be nominating it as well. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Ed Wood's Wig represents the inherent problems associated with Wikipedia. One person's bias trumps the will of others. You've already been outvoted Ed. Perhaps the overall rules in general need to change. This is really self-serving and Ed is doing a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia and the article in general. Had it not been for the snarky remarks Ed made about truthout perhaps the discussion may have gone in a different direction. But from the get go, Ed made it abundantly clear his issue with Truthout is personal. I still chuckle at his uninformed comment about Democracy Now not being a reputable source. How can a show that interviews people, newsmakers that is, on camera not be reputable? Perhaps this is all about Ed's politics. Ed have you been trolling the entries of the right wing publications? Because if you haven't I certainly will and will demand you do the same with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I will assist you Ed. Here's the link to Townhall.com. Delete away. There is absolutely nothing here ABOUT this incredibly popular website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, here's another: RedState. Another popular website. Not a single article about them from a reputable source. Delete away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet another. Mediaite. One very brief mention from the WaPo. Fails in every other category. Delete please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FrontPageMagazine.com is yet another ripe for deletion. Start the thread. Nothing in here but NEGATIVE press from Media Matters. But that's not a standard to keep an article, according to Ed Wood's Wig. So they too should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about Townhall, and might be right about RedState. I'll take a look at those along with Common Dreams. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually right about all of them. Not might be right. And that is merely a sample of what I have found. I fully intend to dig up every news organization article listed on Wikipedia and provide all of the links here and demand you address them in the same exact manner. Then, I intend to contact the wiki users who edit those articles as well as the individuals at these news organizations, and alert them to your despotic intentions. That is now my mission. I have thus far found 27 articles about news organizations that, under the criteria you demand is adhered to, would make these articles worthy of deletion. And these are not lowbrow publications. Some are very popular. So if you want to be a policeman you're going to have to police the whole neighborhood.

Moreover, Ed Wood's Wig, you are fully capable of juggling more than one item. So, you should swiftly begin deletion discussion articles on all of these other publications. There's no reason why this can't be discussed simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have finished collecting most of the article entries, Ed, that would clearly fall under your guidelines for deletion (and since you seem to be the only one here wanting to enforce it I am calling it your guidelines). There are 87. So whenever you are ready to tackle each and every one of these I will post all of the links. So no more singling out one news company over another. For every "lefty" news portal you need to balance it out with one from the right side. That will show you are not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, sorry. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't think anybody is taking you seriously anymore. 76.87.57.127 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — 76.87.57.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, when you can argue from Wikipedia policy, let us know. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no "us," Ed. You're the only one trying to get Truthout removed because of a grudge.
 * — 76.246.156.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge - whatever is relevant and well cited to the leopold article, or very weak keep, the article is very poor and presently a fluff promotional piece with excessive reliance on primary citations to truthout and weak secondary citations, it just about appears notable enough for an article, needs the promotional fluff trimming back though and the primary links to truthout removing and you would have a four line stub. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see no justification for deleting "truthout". It appears to be as notable as many other news sources of the online and/or dead-tree variety. "Notable" for a news source means that it is cited or quoted by others, as opposed to being written ABOUT (which hardly ever happens for even the most notable news source). Truthout gets 462 hits at GoogleBooks, so clearly it is being used as a source by a lot of people. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look, though - most of those sources are from vanity presses. There's some referencing, but, as noted above, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:WEB at all.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll say this for you, Ed, you are certainly dedicated to getting this deleted. If "number of arguments made against it by one person" was a criterion for deletion, this article would be outtahere. But I will stick with "keep". Out of 462 references in books, you can tell at a glance they are mostly vanity press books? Come on. This website/news source is clearly notable, i.e., attracts mainstream attention. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can because i did the legwork early. Some minor references in non-vanity presses like Routledge, for sure (but even then, we don't know if the references point to Truthout pieces or mainstream articles reprinted at Truthout).  If it were clearly notable, wouldn't there be sources about it? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I agee with MelanieN. People don't write articles about other news sources. As for the idea of Merging it with Leopold's article the idea is quite ridiculous. Leopold didn't work for Truthout for years after the Rove incident and has only recently come back. Truthout is quite a separate entity from Leopold and bulking them together would be highly misleading. 76.87.57.127 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing Administrator should be aware that this comment from — 76.87.57.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  should not be counted as the IP has previously chosen keep once above already. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says it wasn't? My IP is on every post. Do you think you're clever by pointing out that every post by 76.87.57.127 is IN FACT ACTUALLY by 76.87.57.127? I stumbled across this deletion thread and made an account specifically to combat the ignorance discussed. That does not negate my vote in any way.76.87.57.127 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ed, you are WRONG, BIASED, and MISLEADING. The book citations are absolutely NOT from a majority of vanity presses. There are major publishers there: Harper Collins, Random House, St. Martins and they are included in the footnotes and that is apparent to anyone who wants to see it. Ed, at this point, I am personally going to appeal to wikipedia and have you banned for blatant bias or have your editing privileges revoked. You have failed to address the other websites that I have taken the time to cite here. Particularly the right wing websites that would also fall into the deletion categories. You continue to single out truthout and continue to try and claim that there aren't any legitimate sources referencing the website. You have a grudge. Plain and simple. Why not just admit it and stop trying to pretend you don't. You have done a horrible, horrible job of stating your case. What you have done is avoided citing the so-called "legitimate" sources that have linked to or referenced truthout and instead have gone out of your way to dig up sources YOU claim are illegitimate. YOU ARE BIASED. What you want, Ed, is to delete the article despite the fact that you have been proven wrong time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop your accusations and rudeness. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most" is not "all." As for the other articles, like I said, I'll be looking at those after. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (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.