This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles
This page seems very controversial and politically sensitive. Let's please discuss here before doing major revisions of the content. Thanks nomos2019 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff like that does not belong to the Wikipedia, and check what you should link and what not, do not wikilink things like "politicians", "corruption", "editing", "founded", "dogs", "female", "anus", "2007" etc. etc.Snowflake91 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this will go to AfD soon, this article is all about the affairs and not about the website Pozareport.si at all, it seems like completely meaningless article, you just included media reports of a few Slovenian affairs, what the hell does detailed coverage of the "Bullmastiff Affair" has to do with the website? Snowflake91 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear talk: This article correctly presents the events and scandals publicised exclusively by this media outlet. It shows the originalist and research journalism of this media outlet. These events are the core of this media outlet. The Bullmastiff Affair is the most read article - if not the most read article - in the country's history. The affair was started by this media outlet and it shows its approach and originality. Please read http://pozareport.si/post/448811/petek-5-februar-devet-let-nazaj-izbruhne-afera-baricevic-dan-ko-je-slovenija-izgubila-medijsko-nedolznost before commenting. You have deleted all the sections, one by one. Please stop vandalising. nomos2019 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not vandalising, you apparently has no idea how the article about news outlets should look like, Wikipedia is NOT there to promote the website and to include their reports about the affairs, if you think that "Bullmastiff Affair" is notable, then create an article Bullmastiff Affair, you should not put detailed reports about the affair there, the affair has NOTHING to do with the pozareport.si with exception that pozareport covered the affair just like every single Slovenian media. STOP adding sections for every single affair that the website covered, and then you back it up with a primary sources. By the way, "the most read article in the country's history" is claimed by pozareport.si itself, so not reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you apparently are either too young or not familiar with Slovenian media or politics. You claim on the deletion page that the editor is an amateur. He has been chief editor of leading national newspapers for over 20 years. You claim that these affairs are not notable. If the article triggered a resignation of a government minister, it is notable. If some media triggered resignations of four ministers, it is clearly notable. Please do not remove sections until the Articles for Deletion discussion is over. Please use this Talk page for your frustrations. nomos2019 (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All edits like this will be reverted on sight, firstly I cleaned all overlinking and you reverted it back = revert on sight, and secondly, as I said, the article should not have an own section for every single report that pozareport made, and you are using only primary sources, this is promotional and useless. See this section: "In summer and fall 2018, Pozareport published a series of articles disclosing improper behavior, threats, mobbing, and incapability to write grammatically correct sentences, of minister of cohesion Marko Bandelli. Bandelli resigned on November 13, 2019, and blamed the media." – this is completely USELESS, no explanation why was this even included, it adds nothing to the article, not to mention its unsourced. We DONT spam everything that pozareport ever reported and make useless sections there. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned everything now and re-included all notable cases without excessive linking, excluding "Relationship with other media" section which is fully biased and fully unsourced, so dont bother adding that back like that. Snowflake91 (talk)
