Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUobserver

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.