Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rag 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 merge to The Rag. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 20:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rag Blog

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

WP:NOTABILITY - Notability is not inherited from The Rag

WP:COI - Article editors appear to have a close association with the subject of the article

WP:SOURCES - References cited in the article do not meet WP:RS or WP:GNG. References for The Rag (notability is not inherited) are included.

WP:BLOGS & WP:SELF

Delete or merge to subsection of: The Rag - PeterWesco (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Rag. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Rag. This particular topic about the blog itself has received some coverage in reliable sources, including these Austin Chronicle articles: [1], [2] and there's this passing mention in the book On the Ground: An Illustrated Anecdotal History of the Sixties Underground Press in the U.S., but this isn't enough to merit a standalone article (the first link provides significant coverage, but the latter two only have mentions. Haven't been able to locate additional sources specifically about the blog itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other links: The Rag Blog was named Austin’s best political blog by CultureMap. This is from The New York Times. This is by Jonah Raskin. Rag Blog articles distributed by Truthout. AlterNet distributed this one. This is from Paul Krassner's bio in his latest book. John McMillian describes The Rag Blog in Volume VII of Conflicts in American History: A Documentary Encyclopedia, but there is no online link. Tdreyer (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer[reply]

You have listed articles that are written by an author on the blog (By Jonah Raskin) and the NYT article is a one line quote from the blog which does not meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG states - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It also states: "Independent of the subject"

Lastly, it does not seem entirely right that you are defending this article because with the WP:COI discussion that is taking place. This specific reason being used in that discussion... AfDs PeterWesco (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems like a case of inherited notability to me. Merging to a much smaller section in the other article seems appropriate. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to The Rag, per nom. & others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:WEB, a standalone article is not warranted.--JayJasper (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2012 (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.