Talk:Power Line

Analysis of sourcing in the article as of April 16, 2021

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 Template:U 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.

1. - 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.
2. - Again, is not significant coverage of Powerline. Mentions it in passing while quoting it.
3. - Same situation as the first two.
4. - Same as the first three.
5. - Again, no significant coverage of Powerline.
6. - This one comes closer. But it's still essentially a quote and a brief (one sentence) description of the website rather than significant coverage.
7. Template:Cite magazine - This seems like an excellent source for this article. It is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable source. So here's one.
8. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/02/016571.php - Not independent, so doesn't contribute to notability, but fine for establishing some general facts.
9. http://web.archive.org/web/20070304000738/http://newsbloggers.aol.com/category/power-line/ - See above; doesn't contribute to notability as not independent, but fine for establishing the fact that AOL included them.
10. https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4483_Page2.html - We're back to failing significant coverage. It's mentioned on a list of blogs they should talk to.
11. - not significant coverage
12. - again, this is not significant coverage, even though they are quoted at length in the article, the article is not about them.
13. - 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.
14. - Again, not independant.
15. - 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)