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.
DePRODed without addressing the issues for reason of: ...' it serves as Rojava's de facto state media and is thus deserving of having an article.' . PROD concern was: The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails
WP:GNG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)reply
SupportRedirect: replacing this article with a redirect to Media of Syria#Hawar News Agency, where a summary of the Hawar News Agency exists, is the best option I can think of.
Batternut (
talk)
09:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I believe Hawar News Agency is notable enough to merit an article. There are many references to the ANHA organisation in mainstream media outlets, including BusinessInsider (
link), The Independent (
link), ABC/Fox (
link), Reuters (
link) and others. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GhostOfNoMeme (
talk •
contribs)
16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I usually loathe to relist a third time but currently it's not clear whether this should be kept or redirected and another week of discussion might yield a clearer consensus on that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: Does seem to have enough sources, and these sort of articles' detailing the affiliations and possible biases of media outlets are useful (since the outlets themselves are rarely upfront about it). The suggested option to delete and list it only on
Media of Syria is not a correct option - that article is essentially a list article, and, as I understand it, should not have organisations on it that do not already have notability enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
19:24, 24 July 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.
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.
DePRODed without addressing the issues for reason of: ...' it serves as Rojava's de facto state media and is thus deserving of having an article.' . PROD concern was: The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails
WP:GNG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)reply
SupportRedirect: replacing this article with a redirect to Media of Syria#Hawar News Agency, where a summary of the Hawar News Agency exists, is the best option I can think of.
Batternut (
talk)
09:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I believe Hawar News Agency is notable enough to merit an article. There are many references to the ANHA organisation in mainstream media outlets, including BusinessInsider (
link), The Independent (
link), ABC/Fox (
link), Reuters (
link) and others. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GhostOfNoMeme (
talk •
contribs)
16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I usually loathe to relist a third time but currently it's not clear whether this should be kept or redirected and another week of discussion might yield a clearer consensus on that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: Does seem to have enough sources, and these sort of articles' detailing the affiliations and possible biases of media outlets are useful (since the outlets themselves are rarely upfront about it). The suggested option to delete and list it only on
Media of Syria is not a correct option - that article is essentially a list article, and, as I understand it, should not have organisations on it that do not already have notability enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
19:24, 24 July 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.