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 redirect to David Horowitz Freedom Center#Programs. Sandstein 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TruthRevolt[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of secondary RS coverage. Of the cited sources, there is only one straight-news RS article (Daily Beast article) that mentions the site, and it does so briefly. The article subject was launched in 2013 and closed in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center#Programs where the subject is already mentioned. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:NWEB for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability at all, especially since this closed two years ago. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per K.e.coffman. Does not meet any applicable notability criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly meets WP:GNG. As well as The Daily Beast, the article cites the Washington Examiner, which is a respectable RS. Also, The Hollywood Reporter did a good piece on the source.[1] These other sources (1,2,3) may not necessarily be RS, but they show that this article is notable enough to keep. Right now, it may be puffed up, but it can and should be cleaned up per WP:RUBBISH.desmay (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 16 August 2018 (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.