Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Above the Law (blog)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Law (blog)

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

I don't think there's enough material here for this subject to qualify as notable, under the protocol established by WP:WEB:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. A quick google search doesn't reveal any significant independent information about this search.he Washington Post reference to Above the Law is parenthetical, and provides very little information on the blog. The notability question was raised when this article was created, and dismissed rather informally on the talk page, but the actual issue was not ever addressed in the article. 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The award from the ABA journal is not well known, and looks like it was based on a web poll. It also is unclear whether the ABA still gives out this award or if it was a one time thing. In fact the only apparent reason for the 'Recognition' section is to skirt this article in under the criteria of WP:WEB

3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).

I don't believe this criteria applies here. The distributor 'Breaking Media' doesn't have a wikipedia page, and a google search for 'Breaking Media' returns largely self published material, this page, another advert style wikibio page titled David Lat.

I also believe this article falls short of the criteria established in WP:V, WP:ORGIN, WP:POV. Thomrenault (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's rationale. --Lincolnite (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was created on 24 April 2011 but does not appear to have been placed on the AfD log until today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a rewrite, but a quick search turns up a number of references to this site in major news sources from the NY Times and NPR on down. See [1][2] etc. That seems to qualify to meet WP:N. So, I'd suggest a rewrite with new sources added. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's really notable. Both of those references are in passing, and there isn't really any independent source which actually goes in depth on the blog. Thomrenault (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, that's why it is called a debate :) However, for the record, I wasn't just referencing those two items; those were examples. The larger point is that news sources such as the New York Times and NPR (and others) are using Above The Law as a news reference and cited news source. That suggests notability to me. Transmissionelement (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Readily meets WP:N. Nomination is frivolous: blog regularly covered by NYTimes, ABA Journal, and NPR, among others; has broken important stories creating national controversy. Nominator appears to have COI or grudge against David Lat given other Wikipedia-noncompliant edits. 207.228.237.110 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, the article is badly in need of a rewrite with new sources. Considered to meet WP:N --Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely recognized and cited blog, albeit of a tabloid nature. Clearly notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.