Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texpatriate

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texpatriate

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

Non-notable blog lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Blog is absolutely notable. Is regularly referenced and mentioned in the 2nd most circulated (on Sundays) newspaper in the United States. Receives mentions from other huge Texas political power players such as Texas Tribune and Texas Monthly. The precedent has been set on political blogs in Texas with Burnt Orange Report. If BOR is considered notable, then Texpatriate should be considered notable as well. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Notability is defined by Wikipedia standards in WP:N and WP:WEB. Trivial mentions do not support notability. There are no precedents in Wikipedia, only compliance with standards. If the article you referenced does not meet Wikipedia criteria, then it should be nominated for deletion.reddogsix (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The mentions are not trivial, the reputable news sources write featured stories on news items the blog has broken. That isn't trivial. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think you are mistaken in the use of the word trivial. The stories the news organizations create may not be trivial, but the mention of the blog is. reddogsix (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Again, you are the one mistaken. The second largest newspaper in the country broke a story because of an article from this blog. It was not a trivial mention. The paper, as well as other notable publications (Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly & Burnt Orange Report), regularly mention the blog. A one-time occurrence would constitute a trivial mention, but recurring mentions, even fleeting ones, establish notability. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in the article. I suggest you read WP:GNG for clarification. reddogsix (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-reddogsix, did you just delete a comment by someone else? Houstonbuildings (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, a comment written by a SPA and signed using my signature that was not my comment. I see that as vandalism. More importantly, I again ask you to please provide the example you refer to of the non-trivial mention in the article. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize for mistakenly using your signature Reddogsix. I thought it was a type of formatting for messages, similar to the formatting of a citation. I am sorry you consider it vandalism and please note that it was not my intention, it was a mistake and it won't be repeated. If you'll recall, my username was used in that signature; I genuinely thought this was a format I was supposed to follow with my comment. As for the defense of Texpatriate, or Texpate, the Houston Chronicle's website Chron.com shows twelve search results, the most recent ten of which are texpate.com itself, where the Texpate site is mentioned. These references have been frequent, 10 times over five months and fairly evenly dispersed [1]. The Houston Chronicle's website is the 1,107th most viewed website in the world and #348 in the U.S. according to Alexa, a site/organization who specializes in such analytic data [[ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chron.com#trafficstats]. Here is the Texpate reference from the Burnt Orange Report [2] and the texpate.com link is hyperlinked with the text "introductory ad," and that is under the sub-title Mayor, paragraph 3 line 1. That hyperlink should direct you to a texpate.com page referenced here [3]. If there are any errors in my comment do not delete it again. Instead tell me how I need to amend my comment.Jaseblake (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)— Jaseblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry, but these are trivial mentions. #1 - the searches are all minimal, comments such as "Texpatriate notes", "I agree with Texpatriate," or a copy of the Texpatriate text. These are not non-trivial per Wikipedia guidelines. #2 does not even mention Texpatriate - and therefore is not a valid reference. #3 - is a self-reference, not not independent or verifiable - not usable as a reference. None of these are valid, non-trivial references. Additionally, the Houston Chronicle's notability is not inheritable by Texpatriate. reddogsix (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing about Texpatriate. The references to the blog in newspapers actually does contribute to notability, but per WP:GNG we also need some sourcing about Texpatriate. In the Burnt Orange Report article, notice the quotes that say something about the organization itself. That's really what we need, someone to write something about Texpatriate (in multiple reliable sources). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since [[Off the Kuff] (the sister page nominated for deletion alongside this one) has been confirmed as an article, I believe it is important to now note the close relationship between the blogs, which most days includes giving each other material. For example, Off the Kuff discussed a State Representative deciding against a Statewide campaign this morning, referencing Texpatriate as its source for the material. As some basic research may show, Texpatriate broke the same news on September 11th, four full days earlier. The same thing happened just last Thursday, when Off the Kuff noted in this article an article from Texpatriate as its source, published on the same action a few days earlier. The notability speaks for itself. Houstonbuildings (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 18 September 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.