The result was delete. Let me preface that due to the massive changes made during the course of this AfD, deleting it per speedy crit. G4 as some below recommended would be inappropriate.
Going through the references in the article as of this revision, we have a total of nine refs, five of which have no initial connection to the source and may be considered secondary. The Washington Post only establishes background info and does not mention the subject. The MyDD article references the Prospect article, and does not mention the subject. The Huffington Post is being used to verify that a writer has blogged at the Motley Moose, among other publications.
The remaining two references are a DailyKos article linking to a Motley Moose story, and the Prospect article; as demonstrated, these simply do not meet the non-trivial requirement as per the general notability guideline (aside: blogs should not be immediately thrown away as sources as some suggested, but due to the general nature of a lack of fact-checking, blogs are expected to meet the criteria of WP:SPS. Editors would be expected to prove the reliability of the author.) Furthermore, the article does not meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB--being written by notable people or interviewing notable people is not part of the criteria; to quote the essay to put it succinctly, it's not inherited from them.
On the AfD talk page, S Marshall brings up valid points that WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IMPERFECT could support the inclusion of this article, and also invokes WP:IAR. However I see no indication in the discussion below and on talk that there is consensus to exempt the article from all the other guidelines along these lines. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]