Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com

Censorship
It seems to me that this page is being deleted due to a political agenda. That smacks of elitism and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvail136 (talk • contribs)
 * Rather than complain, do something constructive by proving that this topic has received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my Delete vote. I agree that there appears to be a liberal bias on Wikipedia, but this one does not appear to meet our standards for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2014
Please append the following comment by TParis to the AfD close, so that anyone looking at it the future can know about WP:AUD as it relates to this RfD:

"*WP:AUD, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." That criterion was met.--v/r - TP 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)" 

People should not have to go searching for such administrative rationales. Thanks.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We don't usually add commentary that wasn't part of the original close, and I don't think we really need to make an exception in this case. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Should this be taken to WP:DRV?
I did not !no vote in the discussion since I did not have a strong opinion either way, but if the AfD is closed, the closing should be based on a solid policy basis. The closing admin's rationale was that that the "Keep rational seems to be strongest that Thefederalist.com is cited and respected by fellow media which makes it notable and secondary sources are adequate." However, being cited and respected by fellow media is an argument for reliability, not notability. These are separate concepts. When asked about this apparent dependency, the closing admin cited WP:AUD. While I was not previously familiar with WP:AUD, that section is currently in dispute: "wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion".  Even ignoring this dispute, significant coverage independent of the sources is still required to keep an article. Further, unless I missed it, I don't recall seeing anyone citing WP:AUD in the discussion which would make the close a super-vote. (Note that making a mistake on policy is not an accusation of deliberate misconduct, it's simply stating an obvious fact: to err is to be human.) I've attempted to discuss this with the closing admin but they've indicated that they are not willing to discuss this further and referred me to WP:DRV.  Therefore, I am soliciting feedback from my fellow editors. Should this be taken to WP:DRV? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:AUD: Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.


 * While no one may have specifically cited WP:AUD, the argument was certainly prevalent amongst the voters. Seems to me that the closing admin found a policy that fit the argument that many were making and used that as a basis for the decision.  That nobody said the magic words seems irrelevant.  So, I'd say no, don't take it to DRV.  We've already wasted too much time on it.  I would suggest instead waiting a reasonable time (6 to 12 months) and see if the article has been improved beyond a stub.  If not, it probably would make sense to merge it.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem when a closer introduces an undiscussed guideline, is there is no way to gage consensus on application of the guideline, but I agree that DRV is not a useful use of time, now, in this instance, regardless of the procedural problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the main issue is the heat generated by the current Neil DeGrasse Tyson issue. Give it 12-18 months and renominate would be my suggestion. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. Prioryman (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)