Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt Orange Report

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 to delete -- Y not? 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Orange Report

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

AusJeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable blog. Article has no sources. No evidence this blog passes WP:WEB. Few passing mentions in news but nothing significant. Contested prod, see talk page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Christopher Connor (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Christopher Connor (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Burnt Orange Report plays a significant role in Texas politics. It is also one of the few blogs to have ever been accredited by the Democratic National Convention, which, based on the relevant literature, sounds like a very selective and meaningful process. — C M B J 04:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appear to have achieved some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. No independent reliable sources that are significantly about the blog. Sources are passing mentions along the lines of "the list includes Burnt Orange Report..." and the like. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect- you may have understandably missed the front page feature in Austin's daily paper from 2008 which is only in their archive now. Bloggers gaining clout, but not cash. There are also multiple non-list references in articles as well as research papers and book references. I've posted more references on the talk page for the entry. Amplifiedlight (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Burnt Orange Report is the most notable of independent non-MSM political blogs covering Texas politics. What makes it notable is that it is quite often a primary source, with original reporting read by and referred to by insiders in Texas politics. WhosPlayin (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) — WhosPlayin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It is known as a first run resource in Texas political news. That said, it is also the go to place for Texas politicians to comment or even create their own blog entries.UNC112 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. I was about to close this but I couldn't help but notice that some of the keep !votes may be from SPAs. A few more comments from experienced editors would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes notability requirements; many sources on Google News Archive. Mattg82 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking through the Google News link provided, I see a tremendous number of name drops but no in-depth coverage. Notability is not equivalent to popularity, so having your name dropped, even having it dropped a lot by big-name papers, doesn't matter. Having reliable sources cover that specific subject in-depth make it notable. Nothing else, not getting your name dropped, not getting certified by a large organization, not anything else, does. I don't see any indication that that has happened, so we can't sustain the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems well-written and sourced, but some sources are itself weblogs WP:RS doesnt allow for. Then again the people writing somethign like this are well-versed in the "art of manipulation" if you must. Sources side, the article itself doesnt mention anything of profound notability, just a few things theyve done so put in the [weak] delete camp.(Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

According to the talk page, there is in-depth coverage from the front page of the Statesman. There's also a 2009 Texas Social Media Award, DNC accreditation, and possibly some more. I'll see what else I can add to the article tomorrow. — C M B J 11:18, 29 August 2010 (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.