| Revision as of 05:34, 29 October 2007 editCygnetSaIad (talk | contribs)355 edits added Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sudan Tribune← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:50, 29 October 2007 edit undoChovain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,761 edits →Sudan Tribune: endorseNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| 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. | 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) | <br/> ] 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse''' - csd request was correctly overturned, as the article asserted the notability of the topic. The AfD reason was just "contested csd". When you later expanded on your reasoning, your interpretation of policy was challenged and discussed. I know AfD isn't a vote, but you need to realise you are the only one who thought the article should be deleted. Others made valid arguments, and the closing admin clearly did the right thing. ] ] 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:50, 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)
- Endorse - csd request was correctly overturned, as the article asserted the notability of the topic. The AfD reason was just "contested csd". When you later expanded on your reasoning, your interpretation of policy was challenged and discussed. I know AfD isn't a vote, but you need to realise you are the only one who thought the article should be deleted. Others made valid arguments, and the closing admin clearly did the right thing. Mark Chovain 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)