Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian International News Agency
From 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrian International News Agency[edit]
- Assyrian International News Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No proof of notability, or reliable sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See references to the agency here (by UPI) and here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We run into the problem here where we have a news agency that's clearly notable, but that it is extremely hard to find sources that descibe it. There are a number of hits out there, but they are all "according to" and such. I feel that notability should be able to be inferred from this, because you are not going to find news articles about news agencies. It's just not going to happen. SilverserenC 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In combination with some other articles, the notability of this news organization can be inferred. Improvement of the article is needed, though. I added two templates to the talk page, and perhaps those projects could provide improvements and expansion of this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News search shows 161 results. They are notable enough to be quoted by other news agencies even. Dream Focus 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge There doesn't seem to be much to say about it but we should keep it as an informative stub until a suitable merge target appears or more sources turn up. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (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.