Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianet

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bianet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find enough reliable sources to establish organization’s notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References given in the article are sufficient. Bianet is a well-recognized news outlet in Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The deletion proposal is obviously a bad faith attempt, probably politically motivated: his/her proponent is Turkish and knows very well that Bianet is one of the very few reliable independent and critical media in Turkey, e.g. on the topics of minorities (ethnic, religious, LGBT). Every 'contribution' of Dirubii Olchoglu on Wikipedia should be reviewed. --Minorities observer (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their other contributions seem fine - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added more sources Chidgk1 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nothing more to say than "Bianet is one of the very few reliable independent and critical media in Turkey" Tehonk (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve. I was able to open the Reuters and rfs.org link, which seem to demonstrate notability. The Al Jazeera link is not working, which by the title may include discussion of the subject to also demonstrate notability. For other topics, I might have moved for a weak delete of the article. However the comments above lead me to believe the subject is notable and old/archived copies of online sources may be found as additional proof. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately as far as I know it had not been archived so I removed the dead Al jazeera link and archived the rest. Also cited The Guardian Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2024 (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.