Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 26 September 2014

Thefederalist.com

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Thefederalist.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEBCRIT - Website launched September 2013. Passing mentions and trivial coverage in a number of articles, does not meet the criteria established for web notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Its inception in September 2013 is irrelevant to noteworthiness.) FChE (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No WP:RS secondary sources demonstrating notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

of course there arent secondary sources demonstrating notability ... they were all removed. WeldNeck (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Passing mentions are not appropriate sources. The Politico article linked below is a nice start, but that on its own is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Weak keep (see below) I was unable to find any mention of this paper other than brief passing references to two of its articles by Fox News and Salon. While it generates a lot of hits on Google they are almost all primary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• While most of the sources below are no good, this one by HuffPo constitutes independent in-depth coverage:, and together with a multitude of passing mentions probably qualifies it as notable. I'm concerned that there are few good sources and that these are not used at all in the article, but that's reason to improve it and I'd rather err on the side of not deleting articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I had more luck finding sources with the search terms "federalist" plus either "Harsanyi" or "Hemingway" (two senior editors), but everything is a passing mention of opinions published by The Federalist rather than a discussion of the website itself. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of sources, but don't be surprised if that changes really soon. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable sources of The Federalist's legitimacy and notability as an online magazine for conservative news includes The New York Times, Huffington Post, Washington Examiner, Slate.com, Salon.com, Physics Today, Politico, The Daily Beast, Forbes, Weekly Standard, and many more. The criticism that a web search for the keywords "Federalist" and "Harsanyi" returned published articles rather than discussions of the website itself is a false argument; one that can similarly be made about any news outlet. mlcorcoran 26 September 2014

— mlcorcoran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• @Mlcorcoran: Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Can you provide any specific links to these sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Sammy1339: Thank you Sammy, I have been a longtime fan of the site and looking forward to contributing in a positive and meaningful way. Per your request: Washington Examiner - http://washingtonexaminer.com/author/david-harsanyi ; Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/david_harsanyi/ ; Physics Today: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070 ; News Sentinel: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140912/EDITORIAL/140919890 ; The New York Times: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/a-last-word-on-the-cruz-affair/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

• @Mlcorcoran: These sources are marginal at best in my estimation. The first two are lists of David Harsanyi's writings, which establishes the notability of David Harsanyi but not the place where he works, and the last two only mention The Federalist once each in passing. The third one, from Physics Today, discusses conservative political criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson and mentions The Federalist a few times, but I think it would be hard to argue that this constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Specifically, none of these sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Sammy1339: Your questioning of mlcorcoran's statement that The Federalist was noted by the sources listed was a VERY serious one. Misplaced Pages requires that such challenges be made in good faith. Please outline, in detail, the efforts you undertook to determine that The Federalist was not noted by those sources. Please keep in mind that a statement to the effect that "I was just asking for links" will NOT be acceptable. You have undertaken the burden of justifying deletion, and it is your obligation to do adequate research to insure your demand is well-founded.

• Let's not assume bad faith in either direction. The request seemed perfectly civil to me. M said "the site has been referred to by <notable websites>, S said "thanks, can you share any links of examples?", M said "yes, here are many links". I don't think anyone needs to take offense about that. -- Narsil (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, let's not. My perfectly civil request was for for Sammy1339 to outline, in detail, what steps were taken to ascertain that The Federalist was not cited by those sources. I can't possibly determine the question of good faith or bad faith until that question is answered. I don't think anyone needs to take offense at that.
• @GaiaHugger: I was just asking for links. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

• @Sammy1339: Please outline, in detail, the efforts you undertook to determine that The Federalist was not noted by those sources. Thank you.

• Keep. You realize that you are just adding fuel to the fire and playing into Davis' argument? Are you all part of their viral marketing campaign? WeldNeck (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @WeldNeck: I would ask who "Davis" is, but it doesn't sound like this is a consideration that ought to be part of the decision to keep or delete an article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your well-thought reason for !voting keep being? Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I think there's been enough talk of it to satisfy WEBCRIT, it's just hard to find because the name isn't unusual enough to stand out from the more famous work from 1788. Media Matters saw fit to write about them back in April . Politico wrote about them, as well, back in January. Physics Today wrote last week about their current imbroglio with Neil Tyson . More are bound to follow on that point. And that's just what I found in a few minutes of searching. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. They are an original news and analysis site. The question isn't whether they have received mentions and coverage, it is whether their work has been cited in other publications of established reliability. The editors above have more than demonstrated that is the case. Also, I try seriously to Assume Good Faith around here, but the timing of this is more than suspicious. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, whether they have received coverage 'is' the question, because that coverage will be the sources needed to write the article. Without those sources, Misplaced Pages cannot have an article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Here are a couple of HuffPo references I found to add to the above cites: Jwolfe (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that we're even having this discussion reflects poorly upon the user who initiated it. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a policy-based reason for your !vote? Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know that as well. You can't just raise your hand and shout "me!", this isn't kindergarten. Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It has a number of well-known writers and is often referred to by external sources, as per WP:WEBCRIT. (For example, its cheerfully trollish vendetta against noted former scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been linked to by, among others, a blog at the Washington Post: Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?) The argument against keeping the page seems to be "Sure, people may link to its articles and talk about the articles, but they aren't talking about the website, just the articles on it"--I just can't see that that's reasonable. Delete the page and it's going to look like a childish tantrum by Misplaced Pages. Narsil (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Barely makes it over the hump. I see a lot of passing references to the subject, none of which matters per WP:WEB. I see non-trivial coverage by just two sources, Media Matters and Physics Today. Kudos to Coemgenus for finding those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep being mentioned in RS sources for material published therein is key here - the removal of all such sources prior to listing at AfD may well have been improper. NYT, NYT etc. show it is notable enough for the New York Times. WaPo. WaPo. etc. (many earlier behind paywall). Any website mentioned by both the NYT and WaPo meets the GNG, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked these sources? Does not look like you did. I moved them to Talk:Thefederalist.com#Notability because the sources did not pan out. These are brief mentions which do not attest to notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did read what I cited, and I would point out that arguing with editors at an AfD generally is nugatory in value, and often results in others noting that fact. RS sources citing opinions from a website are, in fact, not "passing mentions". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This debate, and the timing, would be deeply embarrassing to any legitimate encyclopedia, and is only here because the wikipedia fosters a culture of semi-anonymity that removes individual accountability. If anyone left here remembers me, this is why I left in the first place. Thatcher 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Left what? You are here aren't you? While we are at it, please present your policy-based reason for your vote. Gaba 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an admin would violate AGF like this after a 9-month wikibreak is deeply disturbing to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources identified by Coemgenus are sufficient in my opinion to indicate the required level of notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep OP removes links to the Wall Street Journal and CNN (and many others) then cites "trivial coverage" as a reason for removal. Facepalm --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the coverage was trivial, and one of the sources did not even mentioned the website. Check for yourself Talk:Thefederalist.com#Notability - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You may need to reacquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "trivial". A passing mention is often trivial - a suggestion to read a site, coupled with a synopsis of a recommended reading article is more than "trivial".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not enough, in my opinion, and I spent time looking for sources and validating the ones were there. Not notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The incessant whining and personal attacks against WP volunteers by the site’s co-founder makes it look like a personal blog with an ax to grind IMHO. But, I’ll hold off on voting until I see more rational !votes as opposed to votes without WP policy rationales or links to back up claims. Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep.Work by authors at The Federalist have also been at the core of articles at The Daily Beast and The Washington Post . These are not just passing mentions so that would seem to cover most of the requirements of notability, but there are more if that doesn't suffice: Washington Post "In an interview published online on Wednesday, Paul said The Post’s story was “full of inaccuracies,” calling it a “hit job." again The Federalist forms a core part of the story. Slate, "Paul, meanwhile, can convince his audience of the moment that he has never been inconsistent, and never been duped. He responded to the lengthy Washington Post exegesis in a friendly conversation with the Federalist, a year-old conservative news site. He was not asked to respond to any point-by-point questions about his plan. “Do you believe you’ve changed your mind about the proper policy approach in this arena,” asked his interviewer, “or is this just a matter of people not making a distinction about the threats involved?” . There are quite a few others but these show 2nd party sources referencing The Federalist, again pointing to notability. In short I think the request for deletion should be denied — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshkuru (talk • contribs)

— Cshkuru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/17/gop-whip-supports-obama-plan-with-reservations-at-leasthes-taking-a-first-step/
4. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/rand_paul_s_foreign_policy_contradictions_the_kentucky_republican_explains.html

• Keep On the grounds that I keep running into this danged site and references to it on not-Misplaced Pages, which is more than I can say for most of the pages in the "American political websites" category (I'm admittedly an inclusionist almost to a fault, but I can't think of a rationale that chucks this article but keeps, say, BlueNC.) Also, I'm sick of running into "look how biased Misplaced Pages is" articles and having to defend the site to people who only know about Misplaced Pages thanks to vandalism and controversial deletions (which is most of the adults I know.) Lloannna (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and ban nominator for pointy, tendentious abuse of process. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I do not support banning. Everyone makes mistakes, and this doesn't rise to that level.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit was April 2013, and then this !vote? Have you been canvassed? And you have the chutzpah to ask for banning me? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Publisher Ben Domenech co-founded Red State blog (listed in the handful of notable US blogs in Misplaced Pages's "Political Blogs" page ) and is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute. Senior Editor David Harsanyi has been published in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, New York Post with TV appearances Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, NBC. Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway has written articles for Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN and National Review. Based on the existence of numerous Wiki pages for sites and publications without similarly credentialed contributors, I see no objective basis for claiming the site lacks notoriety. Its removal would suggest bias unless scores of less notable publications were likewise removed. Misplaced Pages should err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion, particularly for a largely subjective criteria such as notoriety. These contributors' works are respected by and reflect and influence the views of millions of U.S. citizens on "the Right" and cannot be honestly characterized as marginal or fringe.Calawpro (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

— Calawpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article in discussion is not Ben Domenech, so I don't see how your argument helps here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Political_blog

• Keep It seems to me that this page is being deleted for political reasons, not for the reasons stated by OP. That smacks of elitism and/or censorship.rvail136 (User talk:rvail136|talk]] 00:12 27 September 2014 (UTC)

— Rvail136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What about WP:AGF, and providing a rationale for keeping the article based on our policies? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Calawpro. The Co-founders are prominent enough in their own right that their blog is notable. It's at least as notable as the ones on |this list so to remove it we'd need to prune that heavily in order to stay balanced. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If co-founders are notable, you can include info on their blog or website on their bios. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• weak keep While there is a dearth of sources discussing them directly, they are being cited and quoted widely, (admittedly often in a negative spin). There are numerous analogues in our notability guidelines WP:NJournals, WP:NACADEMICS and others have being cited and alluded to as evidence of notability, and I think its reasonable to apply here as well. (Although without sources directly discussing them, the article will need to remain a stub for WP:V reasons) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I find it very interesting that we have nine (9) different editors, all of whom happen to have voted the same way, who all came here immediately after extended wikibreaks (or in one case, with their very first edit). Do I detect some meatpuppetry or stealth canvassing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, the usual shenanigans. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the OP claims to be on a wikibreak as well. (or claimed to be, until 5 minutes before responding to this observation)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Should this AfD nomination be challenged because it was made by an editor on Wikibreak? (My opinion: No).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to remove the tag a few days ago. So what? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

S, are you being serious or snarky? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just smiling at the juxtaposition. An editor with a Wikibreak template on their page expresses concern about votes from editors recently on Wikibreak. A self-proclaimed member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians proposes an article for AfD. It shouldn't affect the outcome in any way, but it is funny.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it equally fascinating that edits are being excluded from Neil deGrasse Tyson based on the argument that The Federalist is not a notable source. Soon thereafter, The Federalist is nominated for deletion on that basis. I am sure, though, that no one would then turn around and use deletion as a basis to further discredit it as a source for Neil deGrasse Tyson and other articles.--MikeJ9919 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the relevance of that to this discussion, but I hope you're not suggesting it justifies meatpuppetry or off-wiki recruitment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevance is that the nominator may have an ulterior motive for the nomination, which editors should know. That does not justify meatpuppetry or canvassing that is contrary to policy, which (at least in my case) did not happen here.--MikeJ9919 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets notability guidelines CommuterHell (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CommuterHell (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

@CommuterHell: You have to explain how it meets the notability guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are the one who flagged me as possibly being canvassed, I'll point you to the note at the top to assume good faith in the discussion. I felt it proper to vote and trust me I've been involved in some notability discussions before offline that went quite in depth related to the other account I had for an employer. I understand the differences between being mentioned vs. being notable in your own right and the differences in the two in the guidelines. CommuterHell (talk)

@CommuterHell: No, it was not me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the false assumption then. I just want to make it clear I was not canvassed for this vote and I hope my good faith effort at discussion here instead of just voting and disappearing helps prove that. CommuterHell (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who included you in a list of possibly canvassed editors. Participating after being canvassed isn't necessarily acting in bad faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a false assertion. I was not canvassed. I honestly think The Federalist gets it wrong on some of the things they have written on this, and other sites have in the past as well but I'm a legitimate keep vote on this. CommuterHell (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not accusing you specifically of being canvassed. I'm saying it's extremely likely that canvassing/meat is going on by someone. You might have randomly appeared at the wrong time for all I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether the site "gets it wrong on some of the things" is irrelevant. We are not discussing whether it qualifies as a reliable source but whether it meets general notability guidelines. You don't have to like it, believe it, or agree with it, you just need to decide if it's important/notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was precisely CommuterHell's point—to clarify that it isn't simply the case that they like the content, which would not be much support for notability, but to clarify that the position is something other than "I like it".--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Of course I didn't say make that assertion but thanks for putting words in my mouth - I was remarking that I was aware of the controversy they had stirred up in their coverage of this discussion and that I found them to be wrong on more than one point in their coverage of Misplaced Pages in that regard. I was pointing out I was aware of the controversy but that I voted keep because I believe they meet the notability standards. CommuterHell (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Could someone please list the "criteria established for web notability" or tell me where I can find it so that I can compare the criteria to The Federalist website? mkstokes (User talk:mkstokes|talk]]
  • WP:WEBCRIT. Also, see WP:GNG which is the general notability guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Domenech is relevant to the notoriety of the publication. The fact that he's recognized as a founder of a Wiki-recognized significant political blog speaks to the issue you raised. Misstating the context of my evidence doesn't help convince me your criticism is valid. Dr. Fleischman and yourself would do better to confine yourselves to the argument at hand rather than ad homming the messengers. Calawpro (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing/meat/votestacking/etc. are highly relevant to the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I changed my vote to "weak keep" I'm concerned that in spite of the large number of insignificant mentions in links provided above the only sources which can plausibly be construed as meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirements are a thoroughly negative Huffington Post article and a couple articles from Physics Today and the Washington Post concerning The Federalist's criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson. I worry that it will be impossible to write an article based on that which doesn't violate WP:NPOV standards. I think that keeping the article is really a stretch but I support doing so in the hope that other useful sources will turn up. Obviously I'm also concerned about the apparent foul play, but that doesn't affect my opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• comment on meatpuppetry I think this isn't so much canvassing and meatpuppetry, as the media site mentioning the discussion. Of course that serves as a type of canvassing, but only in so far as any mention of a wikipedia article or discussion in any media venue is. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Link please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/26/wikipedia-is-now-trying-to-eliminate-the-federalists-online-entry/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (Suggest rename to WP:COMMONNAME) It meets the notability requirements. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates