Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 23

Consortiumnews – Deletion endorsed, no valid grounds for recreation in its current state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I've found two reliable sources evaluating the bias and reliability of Consortiumnews (cf. [1] & [2]), thus it is no doubt notable. RekishiEJ (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) writing a new article about the subject. However consensus is that neither of those two sites is a reliable source, see WP:RSPSOURCES. Hut 8.5 11:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD, obviously.

If you think new sources overcome the reason for deletion, you could:

Boldly re-create;

Ask the deleting admin;

Use AfC to draft and submit for an AfC reviewer to decide.

If you want to make use of the deleted versions, go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace or your userspace.

DRV should not be your first port of call for your question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AFD result. Still no significant reliable independent coverage, regardless of what the OP thinks. Anything worthwhile (and independently sourced) about the publication can be added to the founder's article.
(BTW, I'm going to disagree with SmokeyJoe in that I think it is valuable that the OP came here instead of foolishly trying to recreate the article based on inappropriate sources. It's just not going to work and is just going to be re-deleted, so it's good for the OP to realize that now.) Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Softlavender:What did "OP" in your comment above mean?--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  RekishiEJ, "OP" means "original poster" -- in this case, that means you. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, I see.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  User:Softlavender, it might be valuable to the OP to learn this, but this is not WP:RSN. There is no serious deletion question to review. There is no denial of recreation to review. It is scope creep to use DRV like WP:The Teahouse for conversations about article recreations. User:Softlavender SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm firmly in Softlavender's camp, on both of their points (so endorse).—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD from 5 years ago. Plenty of discussion above about potential ways forward. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.