Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 29: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:48, 28 October 2007 editCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,604 editsm ←Created page with '<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> {...'  Revision as of 05:34, 29 October 2007 edit undoCygnetSaIad (talk | contribs)355 edits added Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sudan TribuneNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->

====]====
:{{la|Sudan Tribune}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>&#124;</tt>]<tt>)</tt>

While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs regardless of their admin-or-lack-therof status, {{User|John254}} made an error in my opinion in this one. Of course, I was the proponent for deletion so I might be biased, however:
* Several clear policy reasons were given for it's deletion,
* The keep arguments not only <u>explicitly</u> invoked ], they
* Failed utterly to provide sources supporting the article, and finally
* No commentary was provided in the close as to why core policies should be ignored.

I won't repeat the quotes from policy I made in the AfD, go look at them there if you'd like. Short version: While countering systemic bias is a wonderful thing, it is entirely possible for something to ''be'' a reliable news source without us being able to ''verify'' it is reliable. No sources about something (as opposed to referencing that thing) means no article.
<br/> ] 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:34, 29 October 2007

< October 28 Deletion review archives: 2007 October October 30 >

29 October 2007

Sudan Tribune

Sudan Tribune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs regardless of their admin-or-lack-therof status, John254 (talk · contribs) made an error in my opinion in this one. Of course, I was the proponent for deletion so I might be biased, however:

  • Several clear policy reasons were given for it's deletion,
  • The keep arguments not only explicitly invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they
  • Failed utterly to provide sources supporting the article, and finally
  • No commentary was provided in the close as to why core policies should be ignored.

I won't repeat the quotes from policy I made in the AfD, go look at them there if you'd like. Short version: While countering systemic bias is a wonderful thing, it is entirely possible for something to be a reliable news source without us being able to verify it is reliable. No sources about something (as opposed to referencing that thing) means no article.
CygnetSaIad 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)