Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives (website)

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 delete. Will userfy for an established editor in good standing for the purposes of restoration. Swarm ♠ 03:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives (website)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:G5 -- creator is a sock account of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question of the blocked article creator does not mean that the article/topic fails notability. My problem with the article is that this new article is purportedly about "an American conservative political website", but the handful of reliable, secondary sources in the article are about a couple of rap songs produced by the two prep school boys who started the website, (the videos are apparently hosted on the website). The website may be notable, I have not idea. If some young conservative or Good Samaritan finds reliable secondary sources supporting notability as a "conservative political website" flag me. Because I can imagine a WP:HEYYMAN situation here. It's just, I'm not seeing one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. It was created by a blocked editor, yes, but it's notable. The references convince me. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Looks like the user/(possibly IP?) has been blocked. With an Alexa rank that high, I think it improves WP and should have coverage. Can someone watch it for IP/sockpuppetry vandalism? --Cagepanes (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G5. That speedy criterion is independent of the article's notability by the way. But even if it was not: the article is thinly sourced, with most references barely mentioning the website or its activities (besides criticizing their rapping), and filled with trivial dorm information and staff listings. Not even the most basic information about positive and negative feedback for their video (2nd paragraph in "history") is sufficiently sourced. GermanJoe (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Added content and 10 sources. Pinging E.M.Gregory for reevaluation. I think we'd be doing a disservice to WP to remove a website with such a high Alexa ranking, even though it was from a (rightfully blocked) socker. Did some ref searches to flesh those out a bit, and none of the new sources are about the song/rapping. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cagepanes, you may well be correct. The sources, however, still seem to be websites and blogs. Wonkette appears to be an edited publication. "The College Fix" is also edited, (and can probably support a Wikipedia article.) Are any of the others edited? (The Dartmouth ones are, but they are closely related to the topic.) Which of the sources are reliable and secondary?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Not including articles about the song/rapping: Yahoo, Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy, author Scot McKnight, The College Fix, and multiple Dartmouth Review articles. If you include their rapping (which is still about the organization and how they got their start), there's also: FOX News, Huffington Post, Wonkette, ESPN, and others. While some may be blogs, the sources show that this website is well trafficked and referenced in a lot of conservative media, starting in 2009 and continuing now. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC) ::::I also just added another source from the Huffington Post where they mention Young Conservatives and talk about YC's writer Derryk Green responding to Sally Kohn. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough. Steel Wool Killer / Lanolжeð Renforsdfer Tyklovon (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G5 and GermanJoe. Not referenced that well and should be deleted. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2015 (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.