| Revision as of 05:50, 29 October 2007 editChovain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,761 edits →Sudan Tribune: endorse← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:22, 29 October 2007 edit undoCygnetSaIad (talk | contribs)355 edits →Sudan Tribune: no information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| *'''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) | *'''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) | ||
| :: With respect, the arguments raised were: | |||
| ::# "this site is invaluable" | |||
| ::# "It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News" | |||
| ::# "should actually be a speedy keep" | |||
| ::# " read the Sudan Tribune often" | |||
| :: It may very well be the case that the site is invaluable, and that it does important work in the region. But in the absence of sources that speak to its reliability, etc, we can't write an article about it. These aren't "my" interpretations of policy, they are chapter and verse, mate. Noting that the article '''''still''''' has not source one in it, those provided in the AfD are as follows: | |||
| ::# A Google search | |||
| ::# A listing on Barack Obama's website, and | |||
| ::# A reference made within a House Committee on Foreign Affairs' document | |||
| :: None of these provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic. | |||
| :: ] 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:22, 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)
- With respect, the arguments raised were:
- "this site is invaluable"
- "It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News"
- "should actually be a speedy keep"
- " read the Sudan Tribune often"
- It may very well be the case that the site is invaluable, and that it does important work in the region. But in the absence of sources that speak to its reliability, etc, we can't write an article about it. These aren't "my" interpretations of policy, they are chapter and verse, mate. Noting that the article still has not source one in it, those provided in the AfD are as follows:
- None of these provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic.
- CygnetSaIad 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- With respect, the arguments raised were: