Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle ( talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

OpEdNews

AfDs for this article:
OpEdNews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was kept nine months ago in the wake of some pretty significant contributions from the editor of the site. The article shows a lot of references, but still lacks multiple substantive reliable sources to establish notability or even really much of an article sourced to third parties at all. In the 9 months since the keep, it has not received any obvious new coverage, and the existing coverage is almost entirely limited to a local news piece from near the editor's hometown. This article clearly doesn't meet our inclusion standards and should be deleted just as we would nay other self-published site that only received local coverage. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is borderline unreadable in the wikitext, so I'll try to put this into context. The top link, 700 words, is a local news site from where the editor lives. You have one small paragraph in an opinion piece, and single sentences elsewhere. This is not multiple, nontrivial coverage as required, it is a smattering at best. If you have sources that help the article reach our notability inclusion standards, you've had months to add them. Where are they? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So once again I must ask, where are the sources? The sources aren't there, you've had nearly a year to improve on them and nothing new has arisen. At what point do we cut bait and accept that this is a nonnotable website with no substantive coverage? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • They are above. And Thargor, I will not engage in back-and-forth with you. There is no demand in policy nor guideline that this article must be continually improved to your satisfaction... specially after being repeatedly determined through your many, many , many AFDs and DRVs as a notable enough topic to be spoken of within these pages. I tried before and you continually ignore the consensus to keep. Beating that horse yet again will make this another WP:TLDR discussion. Such Wikidrama does not serve the project. Once the article is kept yet again, we'll see you back in another six to nine months. Please inform me at that time, even though you inexplicably decided this time to not inform those who edited the article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I know you'll avoid actually addressing the elephant in the room, but the sources above do not confer notability through our sources. As I posted a notice at the page, that's all that's required and all that will happen, but hopefully it will actually get deleted this time. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources meet inclusion criteria, as was explained over and over at your other AFDs and DRVs and ignored by you over and over, since you obviously do not agree. As others can click links themselves, I need not cut and paste all those arguments here. What I do wish to avoid is another tenditious and decidedly unhelpful dialog with you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Your questions have been answered and answered again for over two years at multiple AFDs and DRVs. When evidence shows your refusal to accept previous consensus in this mater, it is best to ignore WP:POINTY behavior rather than reward it by further Wikidrama. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's not stonewalling to become tired of having to repeat oneself over and over and over again. What "other people will notice" is 4 AFD's and two DRV's that went against you. What "other people will notice" when looking at the histories is your questions being answered and answered again for over two years at the multiple AFDs and DRVs. What "other people will notice" is your continuing to ignore the repeated consensus toward keep... REPEATED CONSENSUS WHICH DISAGREES WITH YOU. I think you owe the entire project an apology for your continued disruptive and tenditious behavior. WP:DTS Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And none of this comment still answers the question. The consensus of Wikipedia is that we don't have articles on nonnotable organizations, and that scant local coverage is not enough to establish notability. You'd like to see us go against sitewide consensus, so it is reasonable to expect an answer as to why. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What you seem to ignore in your desire to continue a WP:BATTLE mentality is that EVERY guideline is headed by a hat-note (set by site-wide consensus) encouraging common sense and allowing occasional exceptions. Guidelines are NOT mandatory absolutes, and what you have sadly and repeatedly and most purposely ignored over multiple discussions of this topic is that when there are disagreements in application, a subject-specific consensus for any particular topic may be reached though discussion at AFD to allow it to be such an exceptions. WP:IAR. With that, and a repeating yet again that proper sources have been repeatedly shared with and stubbornly denigrated by you, I will go have dinner. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If there should be an exception for this page, you need to present an argument as to why. Repeating the same argument over and over and wikistalking me is not an argument. Present actual sources and demonstrate how they show notability, and then add them to the article, and maybe this won't continually be nominated. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry Thardo, but sources have been repeatedly offered and explained in the many many earlier discussions. And plenty of sources cite the article. When multiple experienced and respected content-building editors and admins determine current sourcing is fine for OpEdNews as a topic to share with our readers, and repeatedly explain how they are, your one voice repeating over and over and over and over and over that they are not and DEMANDING more, makes it obvious that you will never be satisfied. Your continual disagreement with a consensus that runs contrary to your wishes convinces me that you would never take it off your hit list. You have shown yourself to be a fervent believer in WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and you've wasted other editor's time and disrupted Wikipedia in your repeated (and lost) re-nominations of this article. You really need to accept the consensus for this topic and stop your WP:DISRUPTION. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Your use of PPOV in this case is apparently ironic, and your essay spam is noted, but it's really weird that you continue to repeat yourself as opposed to offer up articles that would actually show its notability. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:DISRUPTION is not an essay, it is a behavior guideline. And as articles HAVE already been repeatedly shared for and explained to you and subsequently dismissed by only you, and when consensus (a policy) has ruled against your wishes time after time, I am not going to repeat ad-nauseum what has already been done at the many previous AFDs and the two DRVs. You refused to accept consensus then and you will refuse now. See you at AFD#6. Thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Consensus of the site is that articles without enough reliable sources should be deleted. Why should this be an exception? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
When a WP:CONSENSUS of editors at an AFD or DRV discussion agree that a specific topic does have enough proper sources, it is disruptive to repetitively insist the contrary over two years at multiple discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I saidtin afd3. I note that in the only AfD leading to a delete, the absurd reasons were given "No articles about it in the NYT, which makes me suspect it fails notability. [delete[ without prejudice should it actually achieve any fame" -- the NYT is not the soled acceptable source for notability, and only notability, not fame is required. The sources are sufficient. The article is objective. As this is a publication that will used as a source, or attempted to be used as a source, in WP articles, the purposes of providing an informative encyclopedia will be helped by having an article about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, while this is not about its use as a source outright, OpEdNews is not a reliable source given the lack of real editorial oversight. The utter lack of attention it has received from reliable sources (why you believe them to be sufficient you have not explained) is part and parcel. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
I was not saying it was. If it is not, it will be helpful to have the explanation of what it is already in Wikipedia. Our coverage of potential sources should not be limited to those that are themselves RSs. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
And too, we do have WP:RSOPINION as a consideration. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources have been provided to you many times and exhaustively discussed at the previous AfDs. The issue is not that there are no sources: it's that you don't think any of the sources are good enough. You strongly feel that there's insufficient basis for an OpEdNews article. You also feel is an unreliable, biased site and I see that you have a special tool on your userpage for finding and removing links to OpEdNews from Wikipedia. You can have that position in good faith, but what you ought to be able to see from all these discussions is that the consensus is against you. I do wish you'd stop nominating it for deletion every few months because we do have other things to do apart from telling you things you've already been told.— S Marshall T/ C 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources have been discussed, yes. People see that there are not sufficient sources, but say there are anyway, so I ask for more sources. Consensus of the site is that insufficient sources mean no article, so consensus is not against me unless you're able to change the deletion guidelines. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sad fact is that your narrow interpretation on the multiple sources in the article and those offered over many discussions is flawed. Every other knowledgeable and experienced editor in these discussion has repeatedly tried to explain, but you appear unable to listen it and continually violate policy by such inability and your repeated nominations. As all above have spoken their piece, and I find interaction with you to be making WIiipedia a very unpleasant place, I at least can walk away and accept that an experienced and knowledgeable admin will close against your wishes yet again. By AFD number 6 or 7 or 8, a topic ban for a "polite" but well-meant and repeatedly disruptive editor could be a result. Sometimes walking away serves the project better than haranguing everyone who disagrees with you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "questions" have indeed been repeatedly answered by some of Wikipedia's most respected editors and admins... and your not liking, misquoting, or ignoring the answers does not make them go away or make them somehow wrong. You have chosen to bludgeon the process and continue to WP:BATTLE against the consensus established for this specific topic. Be well, and have a nice evening. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, so where is the significant coverage? We have one local news piece about them, and one line mentions in other sources that offer no useful information. The article is built almost entirely around primary sourcing as is. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:47, 16 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpEdNews_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1222060230"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle ( talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

OpEdNews

AfDs for this article:
OpEdNews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was kept nine months ago in the wake of some pretty significant contributions from the editor of the site. The article shows a lot of references, but still lacks multiple substantive reliable sources to establish notability or even really much of an article sourced to third parties at all. In the 9 months since the keep, it has not received any obvious new coverage, and the existing coverage is almost entirely limited to a local news piece from near the editor's hometown. This article clearly doesn't meet our inclusion standards and should be deleted just as we would nay other self-published site that only received local coverage. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is borderline unreadable in the wikitext, so I'll try to put this into context. The top link, 700 words, is a local news site from where the editor lives. You have one small paragraph in an opinion piece, and single sentences elsewhere. This is not multiple, nontrivial coverage as required, it is a smattering at best. If you have sources that help the article reach our notability inclusion standards, you've had months to add them. Where are they? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So once again I must ask, where are the sources? The sources aren't there, you've had nearly a year to improve on them and nothing new has arisen. At what point do we cut bait and accept that this is a nonnotable website with no substantive coverage? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • They are above. And Thargor, I will not engage in back-and-forth with you. There is no demand in policy nor guideline that this article must be continually improved to your satisfaction... specially after being repeatedly determined through your many, many , many AFDs and DRVs as a notable enough topic to be spoken of within these pages. I tried before and you continually ignore the consensus to keep. Beating that horse yet again will make this another WP:TLDR discussion. Such Wikidrama does not serve the project. Once the article is kept yet again, we'll see you back in another six to nine months. Please inform me at that time, even though you inexplicably decided this time to not inform those who edited the article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I know you'll avoid actually addressing the elephant in the room, but the sources above do not confer notability through our sources. As I posted a notice at the page, that's all that's required and all that will happen, but hopefully it will actually get deleted this time. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources meet inclusion criteria, as was explained over and over at your other AFDs and DRVs and ignored by you over and over, since you obviously do not agree. As others can click links themselves, I need not cut and paste all those arguments here. What I do wish to avoid is another tenditious and decidedly unhelpful dialog with you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Your questions have been answered and answered again for over two years at multiple AFDs and DRVs. When evidence shows your refusal to accept previous consensus in this mater, it is best to ignore WP:POINTY behavior rather than reward it by further Wikidrama. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's not stonewalling to become tired of having to repeat oneself over and over and over again. What "other people will notice" is 4 AFD's and two DRV's that went against you. What "other people will notice" when looking at the histories is your questions being answered and answered again for over two years at the multiple AFDs and DRVs. What "other people will notice" is your continuing to ignore the repeated consensus toward keep... REPEATED CONSENSUS WHICH DISAGREES WITH YOU. I think you owe the entire project an apology for your continued disruptive and tenditious behavior. WP:DTS Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And none of this comment still answers the question. The consensus of Wikipedia is that we don't have articles on nonnotable organizations, and that scant local coverage is not enough to establish notability. You'd like to see us go against sitewide consensus, so it is reasonable to expect an answer as to why. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What you seem to ignore in your desire to continue a WP:BATTLE mentality is that EVERY guideline is headed by a hat-note (set by site-wide consensus) encouraging common sense and allowing occasional exceptions. Guidelines are NOT mandatory absolutes, and what you have sadly and repeatedly and most purposely ignored over multiple discussions of this topic is that when there are disagreements in application, a subject-specific consensus for any particular topic may be reached though discussion at AFD to allow it to be such an exceptions. WP:IAR. With that, and a repeating yet again that proper sources have been repeatedly shared with and stubbornly denigrated by you, I will go have dinner. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If there should be an exception for this page, you need to present an argument as to why. Repeating the same argument over and over and wikistalking me is not an argument. Present actual sources and demonstrate how they show notability, and then add them to the article, and maybe this won't continually be nominated. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry Thardo, but sources have been repeatedly offered and explained in the many many earlier discussions. And plenty of sources cite the article. When multiple experienced and respected content-building editors and admins determine current sourcing is fine for OpEdNews as a topic to share with our readers, and repeatedly explain how they are, your one voice repeating over and over and over and over and over that they are not and DEMANDING more, makes it obvious that you will never be satisfied. Your continual disagreement with a consensus that runs contrary to your wishes convinces me that you would never take it off your hit list. You have shown yourself to be a fervent believer in WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and you've wasted other editor's time and disrupted Wikipedia in your repeated (and lost) re-nominations of this article. You really need to accept the consensus for this topic and stop your WP:DISRUPTION. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Your use of PPOV in this case is apparently ironic, and your essay spam is noted, but it's really weird that you continue to repeat yourself as opposed to offer up articles that would actually show its notability. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:DISRUPTION is not an essay, it is a behavior guideline. And as articles HAVE already been repeatedly shared for and explained to you and subsequently dismissed by only you, and when consensus (a policy) has ruled against your wishes time after time, I am not going to repeat ad-nauseum what has already been done at the many previous AFDs and the two DRVs. You refused to accept consensus then and you will refuse now. See you at AFD#6. Thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Consensus of the site is that articles without enough reliable sources should be deleted. Why should this be an exception? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
When a WP:CONSENSUS of editors at an AFD or DRV discussion agree that a specific topic does have enough proper sources, it is disruptive to repetitively insist the contrary over two years at multiple discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I saidtin afd3. I note that in the only AfD leading to a delete, the absurd reasons were given "No articles about it in the NYT, which makes me suspect it fails notability. [delete[ without prejudice should it actually achieve any fame" -- the NYT is not the soled acceptable source for notability, and only notability, not fame is required. The sources are sufficient. The article is objective. As this is a publication that will used as a source, or attempted to be used as a source, in WP articles, the purposes of providing an informative encyclopedia will be helped by having an article about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, while this is not about its use as a source outright, OpEdNews is not a reliable source given the lack of real editorial oversight. The utter lack of attention it has received from reliable sources (why you believe them to be sufficient you have not explained) is part and parcel. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
I was not saying it was. If it is not, it will be helpful to have the explanation of what it is already in Wikipedia. Our coverage of potential sources should not be limited to those that are themselves RSs. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
And too, we do have WP:RSOPINION as a consideration. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources have been provided to you many times and exhaustively discussed at the previous AfDs. The issue is not that there are no sources: it's that you don't think any of the sources are good enough. You strongly feel that there's insufficient basis for an OpEdNews article. You also feel is an unreliable, biased site and I see that you have a special tool on your userpage for finding and removing links to OpEdNews from Wikipedia. You can have that position in good faith, but what you ought to be able to see from all these discussions is that the consensus is against you. I do wish you'd stop nominating it for deletion every few months because we do have other things to do apart from telling you things you've already been told.— S Marshall T/ C 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sources have been discussed, yes. People see that there are not sufficient sources, but say there are anyway, so I ask for more sources. Consensus of the site is that insufficient sources mean no article, so consensus is not against me unless you're able to change the deletion guidelines. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The sad fact is that your narrow interpretation on the multiple sources in the article and those offered over many discussions is flawed. Every other knowledgeable and experienced editor in these discussion has repeatedly tried to explain, but you appear unable to listen it and continually violate policy by such inability and your repeated nominations. As all above have spoken their piece, and I find interaction with you to be making WIiipedia a very unpleasant place, I at least can walk away and accept that an experienced and knowledgeable admin will close against your wishes yet again. By AFD number 6 or 7 or 8, a topic ban for a "polite" but well-meant and repeatedly disruptive editor could be a result. Sometimes walking away serves the project better than haranguing everyone who disagrees with you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "questions" have indeed been repeatedly answered by some of Wikipedia's most respected editors and admins... and your not liking, misquoting, or ignoring the answers does not make them go away or make them somehow wrong. You have chosen to bludgeon the process and continue to WP:BATTLE against the consensus established for this specific topic. Be well, and have a nice evening. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, so where is the significant coverage? We have one local news piece about them, and one line mentions in other sources that offer no useful information. The article is built almost entirely around primary sourcing as is. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:47, 16 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpEdNews_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1222060230"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE