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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Townhall.com[edit]

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

Tagged with WP:Notability (web) issues, unaddressed, since 2014. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Salem Media Group website/magazine is a reasonably significant outlet for conservative opinion and news stories. Not a reliable source itself for most purposes, but notable as a partisan publication. I added articles from Newsweek[1] and The Plain Dealer[2] that verify this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is notable and well known in its field. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanded. Passes WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually came across this entry because I was looking up the page. Noteworthy enough to have an entry for those with similar inquiries as me. MavsFan28 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and others. Satisfies WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (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.