:::A closer reading suggests that this might also be an issue of WP:V, perhaps moreso than WP:PSTS. This particular article makes quite a number of claims, some referenced, some not. It is also written with a clearly opinionated slant; this itself would not be a disqualification, necessarily, but it does raise the bar for its inclusion as evidence somewhat, given that it is making a clear attempt to push a POV, and we should not allow that POV to creep into our article. the fact that I was not able to determine either whether it was published in the newspaper or blog, or if the former, in which section, further confounds our ability to identify it as a either reliable, or as a primary or secondary source. 
 :::Where that leaves us is here: it is in part a primary source or opinion piece, which would argue against its inclusion, and it may also be an insufficiently-referenced secondary source, which would also argue against its inclusion. 
 :::I think that the other sources are adequate. it pushes a POV hard enough that i think including it would suggest additional problems with WP:NPOV compliance. the issues with this article's verifiability are serious enough to me to merit its exclusion. I will probably be able to post something at WP:RSN later this evening.