Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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 of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency

Alexa rank 254,101. Does not seem to meet WP:WEB. Article created by founder. Delete Rasmus (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Essexmutant 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep IsraelBeach 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)The same bias and hate which caused vandalism to Ariel Sharon's Misplaced Pages page is now attempting to censor an Israeli government accredited news organization. One which has been indexed by Google News since 2002. These are the words which appeared on Sharon's page: "In response to recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Please discuss changes on this article's talk page or request unprotection."

Rasmus - I am kindly calling you out. What is your nationality? Where are you from? Are you a professional journalist or editor? Rasmus - I can assure you that if I witness the deletion of any accredited, professional, international news site which embraces democratic values of free speech you will read about it on Google News on the Israel News Agency ;>

As you can read on my userpage, I am a danish software engineer. Please don't take the listing here personally. Misplaced Pages has guidelines for which subjects are notable enough to warrant inclusion. In my opinion, the Israel news agency simply does not warrant inclusion, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. You might also want to ponder the difference between censoring a subject and deciding it is non-notable. Rasmus (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rasmus - you ignore the Google Hit numbers. Could this be shades of Danish Justice Minister Frank Jensen, who wanted to arrest Israeli Amb. Carmi Gillon under suspicion "of having participated in, attempted or assisted in torture" in his GSS role". Wiki management assures me that Wiki is an objective source of information. Let's see. IsraelBeach 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a news agency referenced by G News that has filed enough stories to generate 65,000 G Hits . -- JJay 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- As a state propaganda arm, not substantially different from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, which has been an uncontested article since mid-'04. Adrian Lamo 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To compare the Israel News Agency to Iran Broadcasting in any manner is grossly unfair and biased. The Israel News Agency is not directed by government officials employed within a totalitarian regime. Basic and democratic principles of free speech are applied at the INA. You will never find the Israel News Agency promoting the idea of "wiping a country off the map". What you will find at the INA from time to time is open criticism of governmental action and policies. That is the true responsibility of the Third Estate - where journalists maintain checks and balances of both the executive and judicial branches of government. IsraelBeach 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So ... I'm sensing an aversion to deleting this article, eh?

Seriously though. You may be better served by approaching this with a bit more detachment. If it was about my personal opinions, and what I as a journalist (though certainly not one with your stated 25 years experience) consider to be reputable news sources, I'd vote to delete -- not just this article, either.

But it's not about my personal feelings, or yours, and you do nobody any favors by appearing unduly zealous in your defense of this topic. Alleging bias is especially unneccesary. I'm voting by what I consider to be a reasonable comparison of notability and relevance.

Since what we're discussing is immaterial to the deletion or keepage of this article, and this isn't really intended to be a means for political debate, let's take further comments to my talk page, as to not clutter this space. Thanks for your input :)

Adrian Lamo 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To get back on subject, could anyone explain what it takes to get listed on Google News? If it is nontrivial, it should satisfy WP:WEB #3, and I will happily change my vote to keep. If not, I will point out that almost all the articles on Israel news agency are written by Joel Leyden or "Israel News Agency Staff". Judging from that I would guess it has no regular employees, so as a news agency it is several orders of magnitude smaller (and hence probably less notable) than Iran Broadcasting. Rasmus (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that WP:WEB is the best criteria to judge news agencies by, even if they are partially or primarily web based. A media outlet is not just another web site. The more general guidelines of personal notability state that an author is notable if they write for a periodical with a circulation of at least 5,000; we can infer from this that Israel news agency is probably notable.

Just about anyone with a web site, some semblance of editorial skill, regularly updated content, and the time to contact Google can get indexed by Google news, though it's not automatic or guaranteed.

Adrian Lamo 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 English-language news sources worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely to see new stories each time you check the page. Pick the item that interests you and you'll go directly to the site which published that story.

Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different organizations are reporting the same story. This variety of perspectives and approaches is unique among online news sites, and we consider it essential in helping you stay informed about the issues that matter most to you." - Google News

Google News recognized that the Israel News Agency was the first on-line source of Israeli Government Press Office accredited news to come out of Israel back in 1995 as the Israel Internet News Agency. The INA enjoys excellent relations with Google News and has been in direct contact with Google News over the years.

Lastly, if one looks well enough, you will discover a variety of professional writers who contribute to the INA. Please see my user talk for more on this issue. Thank you. Israelbeach 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That passage of text from the FAQ is only partially accurate. While articles are selected by automagic technological process, news sources are not selected without human intervention.

Which doesn't diminish your point, but needed clarifying :)

Adrian Lamo 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Werdna648/_C\ 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. — Catherine\ 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. —siroχo 10:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 65,400 Google hits is notable in my book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. —nancetlv 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. —achlasaba 12:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Case is well argued above. Lumos3 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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.