This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Power Line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
When I added the notability template on April 6, I did so with the following edit summary, "Is this blog really notable? Article only cites two sources, and I'm having difficulty finding material ABOUT it." Since then XavierItzm has done a lot of work on the article, and added a lot of sources. Today XavierItzm removed the notability tag with the following edit summary, "Putting this one to rest. When your sources include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, CNN, NPR, Time, Politico and The Hill, among others, the goose is cooked." Now, before I added the notability tag I had seen articles in those sources quoting Powerline (or Power Line - sources spell it both ways), but not articles about Powerline, so I was curious what had been found.
At PowerLine, a widely-read conservative blog, John Hinderaker- Not in depth coverage of Powerline. It quotes Powerline, and justifies quoting Powerline by describing it as "a widely-read conservative blog"; but it doesn't constitute significant coverage.
And not from conservative bloggers, either. John Hinderaker of Powerline thinks a rebellion on the fringe may hurt centrist Democrats- Again, is not significant coverage of Powerline. Mentions it in passing while quoting it.
John Hinderaker at the conservative blog Powerline also enjoyed the symbolism of Holder speaking at the LBJ Library, albeit for very different reasons: "Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965—Holder's intended reference—but he is also associated with voter fraud."- Same situation as the first two.
Conservative John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog argues that normally there's "nothing wrong"- Same as the first three.
Cornyn tweeted, quoting the right-leaning Powerline blog- Again, no significant coverage of Powerline.
ARI SHAPIRO reporting: John Hinderacker spent yesterday criticizing President Bush on the political Web site powerlineblog.com- This one comes closer. But it's still essentially a quote and a brief (one sentence) description of the website rather than significant coverage.
{{
cite magazine}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2012-05-04 suggested (
help) - This seems like an excellent source for this article. It is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable source. So here's one.John Hinderaker at Power Line, a prominent conservative blog, pushed back- again, this is not significant coverage, even though they are quoted at length in the article, the article is not about them.
Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? [...] I called that post "The 61st Minute,"- This one is interesting. It is an interview with the bloggers about the impact the blog had on a specific story. General consensus on Wikipedia (which I disagree with, btw, but that's neither here nor there) is that interviews with article subjects do not contribute to notability as they are not independent.
over now to Powerlineblog.com. This is the three conservative lawyers who blog over here and maintain this site. They were the ones who were widely credited, along with their readers, with really blowing what is called in the blogosphere as Rathergate, those CBS documents last year about Bush's National Guard service.- more coverage of that specific incident.
Now, each of these sources serve a purpose in the article as it stands and I'm not advocating for removing any of them, but the only one that really meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," requirement of General notability is the article in Time. Or, as I said in my original edit summary, "I can't find articles about Powerline". ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are you blocking me? 2600:1700:7670:3850:DD30:166F:2E26:D060 ( talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Power Line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
When I added the notability template on April 6, I did so with the following edit summary, "Is this blog really notable? Article only cites two sources, and I'm having difficulty finding material ABOUT it." Since then XavierItzm has done a lot of work on the article, and added a lot of sources. Today XavierItzm removed the notability tag with the following edit summary, "Putting this one to rest. When your sources include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, CNN, NPR, Time, Politico and The Hill, among others, the goose is cooked." Now, before I added the notability tag I had seen articles in those sources quoting Powerline (or Power Line - sources spell it both ways), but not articles about Powerline, so I was curious what had been found.
At PowerLine, a widely-read conservative blog, John Hinderaker- Not in depth coverage of Powerline. It quotes Powerline, and justifies quoting Powerline by describing it as "a widely-read conservative blog"; but it doesn't constitute significant coverage.
And not from conservative bloggers, either. John Hinderaker of Powerline thinks a rebellion on the fringe may hurt centrist Democrats- Again, is not significant coverage of Powerline. Mentions it in passing while quoting it.
John Hinderaker at the conservative blog Powerline also enjoyed the symbolism of Holder speaking at the LBJ Library, albeit for very different reasons: "Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965—Holder's intended reference—but he is also associated with voter fraud."- Same situation as the first two.
Conservative John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog argues that normally there's "nothing wrong"- Same as the first three.
Cornyn tweeted, quoting the right-leaning Powerline blog- Again, no significant coverage of Powerline.
ARI SHAPIRO reporting: John Hinderacker spent yesterday criticizing President Bush on the political Web site powerlineblog.com- This one comes closer. But it's still essentially a quote and a brief (one sentence) description of the website rather than significant coverage.
{{
cite magazine}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2012-05-04 suggested (
help) - This seems like an excellent source for this article. It is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable source. So here's one.John Hinderaker at Power Line, a prominent conservative blog, pushed back- again, this is not significant coverage, even though they are quoted at length in the article, the article is not about them.
Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? [...] I called that post "The 61st Minute,"- This one is interesting. It is an interview with the bloggers about the impact the blog had on a specific story. General consensus on Wikipedia (which I disagree with, btw, but that's neither here nor there) is that interviews with article subjects do not contribute to notability as they are not independent.
over now to Powerlineblog.com. This is the three conservative lawyers who blog over here and maintain this site. They were the ones who were widely credited, along with their readers, with really blowing what is called in the blogosphere as Rathergate, those CBS documents last year about Bush's National Guard service.- more coverage of that specific incident.
Now, each of these sources serve a purpose in the article as it stands and I'm not advocating for removing any of them, but the only one that really meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," requirement of General notability is the article in Time. Or, as I said in my original edit summary, "I can't find articles about Powerline". ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are you blocking me? 2600:1700:7670:3850:DD30:166F:2E26:D060 ( talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)