Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUobserver: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:00, 6 February 2023

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) f e minist 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EUobserver

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

This article is about a website purporting to be a newspaper. The article relies on no other sources and its claims are unable to be checked. Pete (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There's a lack of substantive information about this organisation, and the article is itself vague; it has coverage in other Wikipedias but with a similar lack of references; at most there are links to news stories in more reputable sources that mention it in passing. It's important to be accurate on this because of its links with various euroskeptic groupings in Brussels that include controversial far-right and nationalist organisations like League of Polish Families, National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, and Ukip. The article lacks up-to-date references on this subject, or indeed anything else to do with the publication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is it notable, it is one of the principle sources of news on the EU. It is cited in various peer reviewed publications that I use concerning EU affairs as a reliable source. A quick glance through my own University textbooks on the EU reveals multiple references to this online paper. The article does certainly need improvement and better sources, but deleting it because you don't like its association at its founding 17 years ago with a eurosceptic group is a gross abuse of wikipedia's editing policy. EU explained (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written entire article to use WP:NPOV and utilising WP:RS. I have deleted all non-attributable information. For its circulation figures, I have written that it "claims" them, as I agree there is a lack of good information out there on this. With regards to it failing WP:GNG, the published sources I have provided, including one academic publication and one English language textbook (used in pretty much any EU politics university reading list) have both described it as one of the primary sources of EU news, together with EurActiv and Politico Europe. Enough. This conversation is a prime example of users failing to take account of WP:Global. EU explained (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whatever claims may be made for this, the claims are only supported by their own web-site. There is not a single independent reference. Fails WP:GNG despite the recent removal of the notability tag from the article. The editing pattern also shows a considerable streak of WP:COI from its two (one ?) main contributor(s) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the article is adequately sourced, my reasons for listing this article for deletion no longer apply. Good to have an editor who knows what he's about improve the article. Thanks, EU explained! --Pete (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clear from the content. --Mervyn (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Article now has proper sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2017 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-===[[:EUobserver]]===
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}}
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''keep'''.  <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> [[User:Feminist|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">f</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Feminist|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">e</span>]][[User talk:Feminist|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">minist</span>]] 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
+===[[:EUobserver]]===
 :{{la|EUobserver}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUobserver|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 24#{{anchorencode:EUobserver}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EUobserver Stats]</span>)
 :({{Find sources AFD|EUobserver}})
 This article is about a website purporting to be a newspaper. The article relies on no other sources and its claims are unable to be checked. [[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 *<small>'''Automated comment:''' This AfD was not correctly [[WP:TRANSCLUDE|transcluded]] to the log ([[WP:AFDHOWTO|step 3]]).  I have transcluded it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 24]].  —[[User:Cyberbot I|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot I|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 22:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)</small><!--Cyberbot I relist-->
-:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Belgium|list of Belgium-related deletion discussions]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<font color="#008080">CAPTAIN RAJU</font>]][[User talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|<font color="#FF0000"> (✉)</font>]]</span>''' 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)</small>
+:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Belgium|list of Belgium-related deletion discussions]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="color:#008080;">CAPTAIN RAJU</span>]][[User talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="color:#FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]]</span>''' 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)</small>
-:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media|list of News media-related deletion discussions]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<font color="#008080">CAPTAIN RAJU</font>]][[User talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|<font color="#FF0000"> (✉)</font>]]</span>''' 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)</small>
+:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media|list of News media-related deletion discussions]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="color:#008080;">CAPTAIN RAJU</span>]][[User talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="color:#FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]]</span>''' 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Delete''' as not notable. There's a lack of substantive information about this organisation, and the article is itself vague; it has coverage in other Wikipedias but with a similar lack of references; at most there are links to news stories in more reputable sources that mention it in passing. It's important to be accurate on this because of its links with various euroskeptic groupings in Brussels that include controversial far-right and nationalist organisations like [[League of Polish Families]], [[National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria]], and [[Ukip]]. The article lacks up-to-date references on this subject, or indeed anything else to do with the publication. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Not only is it notable, it is one of the principle sources of news on the EU. It is cited in various peer reviewed publications that I use concerning EU affairs as a reliable source. A quick glance through my own University textbooks on the EU reveals multiple references to this online paper. The article does certainly need improvement and better sources, but deleting it because you don't like its association at its founding 17 years ago with a eurosceptic group is a gross abuse of wikipedia's editing policy. [[User:EU explained|EU explained]] ([[User talk:EU explained|talk]]) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
+:Re-written entire article to use [[WP:NPOV]] and utilising [[WP:RS]]. I have deleted all non-attributable information. For its circulation figures, I have written that it "claims" them, as I agree there is a lack of good information out there on this. With regards to it failing [[WP:GNG]], the published sources I have provided, including one academic publication and one English language textbook (used in pretty much any EU politics university reading list) have both described it as one of the primary sources of EU news, together with EurActiv and Politico Europe. Enough. This conversation is a prime example of users failing to take account of [[WP:Global]]. [[User:EU explained|EU explained]] ([[User talk:EU explained|talk]]) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - whatever claims may be made for this, the claims are only supported by their own web-site. There is not a single independent reference. Fails [[WP:GNG]] despite the recent removal of the notability tag from the article. The editing pattern also shows a considerable streak of [[WP:COI]] from its two (one ?) main contributor(s) <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 21:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' Re-written entire article to use [[WP:NPOV]] and utilising [[WP:RS]]. I have deleted all non-attributable information. For its circulation figures, I have written that it "claims" them, as I agree there is a lack of good information out there on this. With regards to it failing [[WP:GNG]], the published sources I have provided, including one academic publication and one English language textbook (used in pretty much any EU politics university reading list) have both described it as one of the primary sources of EU news, together with EurActiv and Politico Europe. Enough. This conversation is a prime example of users failing to take account of [[WP:Global]]. [[User:EU explained|EU explained]] ([[User talk:EU explained|talk]]) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Keep'''  Now that the article is adequately sourced, my reasons for listing this article for deletion no longer apply. Good to have an editor who knows what he's about improve the article. Thanks, [[User:EU explained|EU explained]]! --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Notability is clear from the content. --[[User:Mervyn|Mervyn]] ([[User talk:Mervyn|talk]]) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' As above. Article now has proper sources.  [[User:Deathlibrarian|Deathlibrarian]] ([[User talk:Deathlibrarian|talk]]) 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' per [[WP:HEY]]. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
+{{clear}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>