Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaindian News (2nd nomination)
Source: 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 delete. I'm sorry but the delete !voters make a stronger case here. Thaindian News needs to be "written about" not just "quoted from". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Thaindian News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable site. Fails WP:GNG. Secret of success (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same arguments as last time around, only the numbers are bigger. Over 3 million Google Search web page hits mention it. 200 Google News hits, including name publications such as Kyiv Post, Daily Times (Pakistan), Ms. (magazine), and UPI.com referencing them as the source of reports. About 600 Google Books hits of books that reference them in footnotes or end notes. If all these publications are referencing Thaindian News, there should be a WP article that explains what it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google web page results cannot determine notability. The books, again, indicate trivial coverage, none of them seem to talk about the site, but rather show a passing mention of the subject. I see a similar case with the news results as well. Secret of success (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I'm arguing that for a news portal, those 'passing mentions' are what is significant. We're not in the old days where there are just wire services and newspapers and that's it. The media food chain has got these other kind of entities too now, relayers and aggregators and portals and so forth, and this one pops up frequently enough in the food chain to make a brief article worthwhile. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness ≠ notability. Each web aggregator is linked to – it is the main idea of news aggregator. The sites caring their reputation name the sources. Thus the mentions only prove that this site exists, not that it is notable. To warrant the article this one should be notable among them, so what is it notable for? – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. The mention shows the existence of the sites, not the notability. Articles need to indicate why their subject is significant through reliable sources, and if no sources talk about the site in a higher level of detail, it clearly fails the notability criteria. Secret of success (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness ≠ notability. Each web aggregator is linked to – it is the main idea of news aggregator. The sites caring their reputation name the sources. Thus the mentions only prove that this site exists, not that it is notable. To warrant the article this one should be notable among them, so what is it notable for? – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I'm arguing that for a news portal, those 'passing mentions' are what is significant. We're not in the old days where there are just wire services and newspapers and that's it. The media food chain has got these other kind of entities too now, relayers and aggregators and portals and so forth, and this one pops up frequently enough in the food chain to make a brief article worthwhile. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google web page results cannot determine notability. The books, again, indicate trivial coverage, none of them seem to talk about the site, but rather show a passing mention of the subject. I see a similar case with the news results as well. Secret of success (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydeleteper WP:CSD § A7: the article doesn't even claim the notability of this site. Meanwhile WP:NWEB (the guideline on web content notability) gives two notability criteria: (1) the content (that is this site, not its wires) has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself and (2) it received a recognized award from independant body. Neither of this condition is demonstrated to be met. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- WP:CSD also (justly) says that a page generally should not be speedy deleted if it survived its most recent deletion discussion. Especially not as we now have another discussion to hopefully settle it. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You like it more this way? Rationale still stands. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely better. There's rarely a need to CSD 4 year old articles, PROD and AfD work just fine and provide more transparency.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You like it more this way? Rationale still stands. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD also (justly) says that a page generally should not be speedy deleted if it survived its most recent deletion discussion. Especially not as we now have another discussion to hopefully settle it. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to BNO News. All the sources I can found are for the press release anouncing their collaboration contract, or small info blurbs like this. Readers wanting to know about the agency will be best informed with the redirect. Diego (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many reliable news sources do reference them. Major newspapers and magazines wouldn't quote what they said if they didn't consider them reliable. Dream Focus 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources reference this in a significant way? I couldn't find any after several hard tries; "some magazines consider it reliable" isn't a reason to keep an article at Wikipedia if we can't write anything about it. Diego (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ms. Magazine [1] says "According to Thaindian News, the Women's Reservation Bill is supported by India's Congress and one of its major political parties." and links to their article about that. Daily Times (Pakistan) trust them as a reliable news source. [2] Two hundred Google news archive search results to go through, and 579 Google Book search results for "thaindian news". Their website gets "about 150,000 people daily." Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the books suggest trivial coverage, nothing more. That certainly cannot be a sign of notability, unless I'm very much mistaken. Secret of success (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ms. Magazine [1] says "According to Thaindian News, the Women's Reservation Bill is supported by India's Congress and one of its major political parties." and links to their article about that. Daily Times (Pakistan) trust them as a reliable news source. [2] Two hundred Google news archive search results to go through, and 579 Google Book search results for "thaindian news". Their website gets "about 150,000 people daily." Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability and notability are not exactly same. Secret of success (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the ways Wikipedia determines notability is by letting reliable sources tell us if they are notable. This can be done by them talking about them, or simply referencing them all over the place. Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To write an article, you need some material. There seems to be no site which talks about Thaindian News (about the site itself), even though they use the reports presented by it. Secret of success (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream, what do you suggest should be the content of this article? Maybe "Thaindian News has reported about Women's Reservation Bill.[3] Thaindian News also reported about Pakistan’s Deputy High Commissioner to India[4]"? The spirit of Notability is having something to say about the topic for which we created an article. The indirect notability you suggest would make sense if we already had some verifiable facts, but we don't have them. Diego (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To write an article, you need some material. There seems to be no site which talks about Thaindian News (about the site itself), even though they use the reports presented by it. Secret of success (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the ways Wikipedia determines notability is by letting reliable sources tell us if they are notable. This can be done by them talking about them, or simply referencing them all over the place. Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources reference this in a significant way? I couldn't find any after several hard tries; "some magazines consider it reliable" isn't a reason to keep an article at Wikipedia if we can't write anything about it. Diego (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to an appropriate target once one is found. Diego Moya (talk · contribs) suggests BNO News, syndicated by Thaindian, but according to Thaindian's About Us page, Thaindian reprints content from several other agencies, including ANI, IANS, Sampurn Wire, among others. As to the notability of Thaindian News, there is no significant coverage about this website, and reliability ≠ notability. Goodvac (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks significant coverage to pass any of the notability guidelines. Mtking (edits) 06:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete insufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. WP:GHITS is not a reason for keeping either. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2012 (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.