Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Kaine (2nd nomination)

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. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Kaine[edit]

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

unsourced with no references to establish notability. nothing has improved since the last time it was nominated 4 years ago. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no sources except the blog itself, especially after four years, it very clearly does not meet notability and should be treated as strictly promotional (especially since none of the bloggers are notable either).HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , with the very substantial sources from the Washington Post found by Whpq at the previous afd: [1], [2], I don't know why they weren't added then, but they should be. I added them now . Even if people don't check the googles before nominating , they should at least check the previous AfDs . DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not I agree with the content of the webpage that is the subject of this AfD the primary question of an AfD is "Is the subject notable, as Wikipedia defines notability?" To this I have to say that it is, see this coverage in this book. that clears the significant coverage criteria IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book was written by one of the blog's founders. It will do for objective facts about the blog, but not for its impact or anything. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has already been improved compared to when it was nominated, and the subject was an influential pioneer in netroots activism. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why I didn't add the references from last time, but still a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2013 (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.