Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Howler

The Daily Howler[edit]

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 (Missing log taken into account, but the consensus is firmly against any administrative action being required. Thanks to User:Monty845 for catching this)(non-admin closure) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There don't seem to be any independent sources attesting to this website's notability-at least, none included in the Wikipedia article itself. Almost every single link leads back to the website being described. Of the 3 that don't, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the final one is from an article published a decade ago. This also reads like a press release for the website. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the dead link, it is a sqib in the Columbia Journalism Review, attesting to The Daily Howler's place in the world of online journalism media criticism. M.boli (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. It seems like that's from an article that's not accessible online-outside of the Wayback Machine. Is there any relevant coverage of this website from within the past decade that can be cited, re: notability? I'm having trouble finding any recent, non-blog based coverage of TDH which could attest to its notability.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see your point! It seems like Daily Howler was notable 10 years ago, but much less so now. Gobonobo (talk · contribs) added two references, which talk about what DH did in the past. Doing a little searching (and using search options to exclude self-referencing) comes up with 6,000 to 7,000 references to DH. Most are from blogs, they are largely (but not entirely) not recent. I still vote for keep, it seems to me that the DH has a place in political blog history and is still relevant. But absent that historical context, if it were a fresh creation, I could agree it isn't Wikipedia-worthy. M.boli (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note This nomination was missing its template and was not properly listed. I have fixed both, but please consider the time of listing when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this was a pretty significant blog for at least a decade starting with its creation. Searching "dailyhowlder.com" on google books, scholar, etc. seems to give different results thank "Daily Howler", in case you want to read more about it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NTEMP applies. The fact that an online news source that seems to have stopped major reporting in 2011 is not generating current coverage is entirely unsurprising. If there is coverage from when it was making an impact, the article passes WP:GNG and should stay. Significant independent coverage exists: At least two books (What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News[1] and Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy: Terrorism, War, and Election Battles[2] credit this site with enabling a better analysis of media coverage of Al Gore. Both books are scholarly works by established media studies professors. An additional GScholar 43 results further indicate lasting impact in the scholarly study of media in the early Aughts, including journals as significant as Columbia Journalism Review. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Here are some non-trivial reviews:

Full-Court Press.

Alterman, Eric

Nation, Nov 22, 1999; Vol. 269, No. 17, p. 10

The article focuses on the success of Bob Somerby, employee of Washington Press Corps.... more

A case of stacking the deck.

Leo, John

U.S. News & World Report, Jul 28, 2003; Vol. 135, No. 3, p. 44

Focuses on Internet commentator, Bob Somerby, and his Daily Howler Web site, in light ... more

The Howler's Quiet Moment: Bob Somerby, Media Scourge, Considers His Next Crusade.

Twomey, Steve

Columbia Journalism Review, Jan 01, 2005; Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 17-19

This article features Bob Somerby, who started digital-media watching through his Web ... more

Clearly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2017 (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.