Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination)

Add links
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 delete. 65% is a very loose consensus to delete, if one were to just perform a headcount. However, WP:V (and WP:RS) are non-negotiable, and in my judgement, there has been no provision of the necessary reliable verification during the course of the discussion. I leave it to others to decide if the page should be protected from recreation. Proto::type 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel_News_Agency

User:Danny Thinks the article should be deleted by the following logic:

"Joel Leyden is a known SEO spammer and states that on his website. He is using Wikipedia, and has admitted as such, to get traffic to his blog. He is not a noted journalist. I state this unequivocally as someone who has worked for 15 years in the Israeli media, and as anyone from the Hebrew wikipedia will tell you. In fact, he is an unknown in Israel. Here is a classic example of someone abusing wikipedia for personal gain. What is worse, his blog (and as an examination will show, it is nothing more) is one of the tools he is using to fight a custody battle with his ex-wife over his children. As a user, now banned, he attempted to use wikipedia to fight this same custody battle, as a perusal of the history of Raanana will show. In addition, he was banned for harrassing another user, both online and in person. The votes to keep included sockpuppets and personal friends, who have fewer than ten edits each, i.e., make 3 edits and vote for Joel. I am not even going to discuss his personal attacks against me or the foundation on his blog. Given the confusion of information and misinformation there, I can only wonder what kind of nonsense he is posting in his article. Nevertheless, I will state this, summarizing a lengthy email which I sent to the Arb Com about two months ago: if the Hebrew Wikipedia, based in Israel, sees fit to include a version of the article about him or his blog, I will support its inclusion in English. If not, I will continue to regard it as simple SEO spam and unverifiable drivel by someone attempting to use wikipedia to attain fame and pursue his own, selfish agenda, using false information, sock puppets, and what have you. I sincerely hope that this is not the direction that Wikipedia is taking. Danny 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" (from: User_talk:Ilmari_Karonen#Leyden)

I agree it should be deleted because of the degree to which it is promoting the subject of the article. It also have serious problems with WP:V I have semi-protected this page. If this causes you a problem please edit on the talk page. Due to past problems with socks if you have few than 150 edits please restrict yourself to commenting.Geni 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, in spite of the above user's comment, everyone is more than welcome to vote in this VfD, as is Wikipedia policy. Stanfordandson 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy also says that votes by anonymous or new users may be discounted or given less weight than votes by established users. I don't see how this is any different. It's just a proactive measure to head off the sockpuppets as opposed to an effort to clean things up and sort them out after the fact.--MikeJ9919 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html HOT OFF THE PRESS!]. I don't see any evidence of a July 5/6 deletion in the article history though, and I don't know why they think making parallel with Ken Lay is going to make people more sympathetic to them Bwithh 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been trying to gather verifiable facts about this agency for the purpose of an eventual rewrite. As these may be relevant to this debate, I thought I'd mention this here. Under the circumstances, I'll refrain from arguing either way about the fate of the current version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For people google-checking etc., note that there is a well-established organization sometimes known as "ITIM" or "The Israel News Agency" which as been around since 1950 and has relations with Israel's major newspapers[1]. This is not the same agency has the one being considered for deletion (www.israelnewsagency.com/ scroll all the way down the INA site and you'll see their own disclaimer).

  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM (Create stub for ITIM) This seems to be an amateur news blog run by an all volunteer staff. For something which is supposed to be a leading news organization, they seem oddly proud about being accredited by the government press office[www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html]. I ran a Factiva multi-decade newswire and newspaper (including Israeli English language newspapers) database search (which includes the Reuters and other newswires) and came up with no relevant (CORRECTION) about three hits for "israel news agency" or "israel internet news agency" as a source. Alexa ranking of over 233,561. [2] (Compare Haaretz ranking of 2,474[3], Jerusalem Post ranking of 2,189[4], Maariv ranking of 1,008[5]) Bwithh 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly oppose the suggestion to redirect. I've never seen ITIM referred to as "The Israel News Agency" - perhaps informally "Israel's News Agency" or "The Israeli News Agency", but never "The Israel News Agency". I'm afraid such a redirect would only create further confusion as readers encountering Leyden's criticism of Wikipedia search for his agency, and find the highly reputable ITIM instead. --User:Woggly 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Of course, I will defer to those more acquainted with the Israeli media, but I'm not making this up out of thin air. See for instance, this google search which includes an article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and article from Globes, a leading Israeli Hebrew language financial newspaper that both describe ITIM as "ITIM the Israel News Agency". There are also a few hits on the Factiva database including a report from China's Xinhua news agency, several articles from Israel Business Arena and a column in the Jerusalem Post which describe ITIM as "ITIM - the Israel News Agency" or simply "Israel News Agency (ITIM)". Factiva also shows the BBC as the original source for this March 2006 Israel Media Guide article here (unsourced and breaching copyright in this link), which uses the phrase "ITIM (Israel News Agency)". There also other references to ITIM as "Israeli News Agency (ITIM)" or variations on that[6]. Finally if ITIM was never widely known as the Israel News Agency, why does the Israel News Agency blog under afd discussion need a specific disclaimer saying that it is not ITIM?Bwithh 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure the name Israel News Agency was purposefully chosen precisely so as to to give the (false) impression that the INA is a central national and/or government service. In fact, ITIM is the only Israeli news agency of any significance. You've convinced me that ITIM has on occasion been referred to as "The Israel News Agency" - this is equivalent to calling The Boston Globe "The Boston Newspaper". My point is this: if the Wikipedia article Israel News Agency is made into a redirect to ITIM, it will end up looking as if ITIM is responsible for all the nonsense issuing from the INA. --woggly 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITIM was never the Israel News Agency. ITIM does not have an on-line or print news presence. ITIM is a media placement organization, not a news agency. According to the Israel Government Press Office there is only one Israel News Agency and that is the one for which Danny deleted after community consensus to keep. Karnei 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) User has made fewer than 40 contributions, most of which have to do with Joel Leyden and the Israel News Agency -woggly[reply]
Response Firstly, if ITIM was never the Israel News Agency, why does the Israel News Agency weblog need a specific formal disclaimer saying it is not ITIM? Secondly, ITIM is specifically intended to act as a news agency not "a media placement organization". See this article. Bwithh 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the issue of sockpuppets - where's the beef? Where's the evidence? There is none. Even a check user has been performed and proved nothing. Karnei, or Lisa has revealed her personal details - far from being a sock. As for myself, I have spoken with Danny. He knows me and the academic organization I work for which works with Wikipedia Foundation. What we have here is "quilty by association" which must stop. We are not here to discredit Leyden but to establish, as has been proven many times in the past, is the INA notable. I would vote keep but according to a highly subjective standard here it would not be accepted. If someone created an account for the purpose of voting here that would be a different matter. Bonnieisrael 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blog like output about wikipedia indicates problems we are better off without for now. Should be blanked for a year and revisted then. Anyone with google can find truth data, so censorship from the public is not an issue. For now, no. WAS 4.250 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting is evil. Ignore ALL the votes and determine the result based on an unbiased evaluation of the arguments and evidence and logic. Who does that evaluation? Ahh! There's the rub! WAS 4.250 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I'm not convinced that Google News is any good indicator, I am convinced that the [www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html press credentials] and media sourcing is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first link is to the ina site itself, the 2nd is a brief mention of a contest about cartoons in JewishWeek, no real proof of notability. Crum375 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Israel News Agency in the cartoon article describes blog/googlebombing activism by the Israel News Agency, and not the professional activities of a news organization. Bwithh 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since any news organization that wants to work in Israel needs press creds, the posting of Israeli press credits for a news agency is about as meaningful as posting the phone number. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused then about #1. Why are you citing as proof of notability the ina site itself (www.israelnewsagency.com)? Am I missing something here? Crum375 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wasn't there, and haven't read the history, but if you had good reasons for inclusion, as you imply, I would assume they would include a showing of verifiable and reliably sourced notability in the article. If they were not in the article, you (or anyone else) would have inserted them there by now. As of this minute, I don't see any of them. Thanks, Crum375 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth my time to edit an article that is constantly being deleted out of process by User:Danny or other admins? Is it worth my time to edit any article given that they can be deleted at any time for no reason, or repeatedly renominated on afd? You can assume anything you want, but since you weren't there I would encourage you to read the previous AfD debates and DRV review concerning this article. Just so we're all on the same page. Thanks, --JJay 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for me personally, if instead of saying: "this was already argued and decided, I don't want to talk about it or improve the article" (my paraphrasing) you simply presented a couple of good reliable, verifiable sources of notability here, someone neutral like me would instantly support you and change the 'Delete' to 'Keep'. In fact I would insert your citations into the article myself for you if it's not worth your time. Crum375 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please don't decide to "keep" simply because this has been discussed before. There may be things about this article and its subject you missed last time. As I've said, Leyden and his friends have done everything they could to make the INA seem more notable than it is, including tilting the AfDs and constantly repeating false information (such as claiming the INA reaches 60 million readers). There is a reason this keeps coming up. Danny's deletion may have been rash, but it seems more and more justified when I get the impression people want to keep this article just so we don't have to discuss this again. Please take the time to read the talk page of the article and the arguments of others before you decide to keep it out of hand. DejahThoris 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain to me what is going on. The beginning of this AfD implies that User:Danny is the nominator, but in fact it is User:Geni. [7] User:Geni has also decided to prohibit users with fewer than 150 edits from participating fully in this discussion, not just semi-protecting the page but also moving their comments to the talk page instead [8]. The fact that there is no article about this news agency in the Hebrew Wikipedia, while not a point in the article's favor, should not be considered a significant negative either since the news agency publishes only in English. Anyway, the fact that the Israel News Agency is a Google News source is a reason we should have an article about it, since people may want an independent, neutral description of what kind of source it is. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny any of this. I have done what I belive needs to be done in order to make sure that there can be no disspute as the the result. Whatever it is. If you wish to disspute the rightness of my actions I would rather we found a different venue for that debate.Geni 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the criticism of User:Geni because I was not aware until just now that the article had been subjected to another out-of-process deletion by someone else before Geni's nomination. (I had been aware of the results of the previous AfDs and deletion reviews.) The rest of my comments stand as a reason why the article should be kept. --Metropolitan90 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Everyking. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and WP:V. We have no need to encourage spammers taking advantage of Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source that seems to imply any notabiliy for the INA is the INA itself. I would assume the reason behind Geni's action was that Leyden has sent many of his friends to the previous AfDs to vote to keep. I have been following this debacle for a while, and I have yet to see anything that suggests the INA is notable. I do not think being mentioned in small news sources because of an SEO stunt is sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. It's not surprising that Leyden has a Israeli press card, as everything he publishes has a distinctly pro-Israel slant. As for referring to it as "fully accredited by the Israel Government Press Office," a Google search of that phrase shows that it is being applied to only the INA. According to this article Israel has a list of more than 17,000 "accredited journalists." Leyden and his friends have consistently misrepresented the INA to attribute far more notability than it has. Non-profit "news agency" = blog. DejahThoris 00:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny. Also compare the recent precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination).--Eloquence* 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM, per nom and Bwithh. It's a blog. "It can't be a blog because we were started before the word was coined" is (paraphrased) Leyden's hysterical counter-argument. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM, per nom and Bwithh: reasoning per Calton, Dejah (well put), JoshuaZ, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Fix it. Ensure NPOV. Remove promotional content. And the out of turn deletion by Danny was disgraceful. You may not like it, but deleting it because "this is tiresome" against the previous 2 AfD/VfD was just... not nice. ShaunES 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete A clear waste of our time. --Pilotguy (roger that) 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless Danny is just going to delete it again regardless of the result, as shown by the previous AFDs and DRVs. Nevertheless I shall respond to some of the flawed points presented above.
I ran a Factiva multi-decade newswire and newspaper (including Israeli English language newspapers) database search (which includes the Reuters and other newswires) and came up with no relevant hits for "israel news agency" or "israel internet news agency".
You either a) suck at using factiva or b) are lying.
In this case, I was careless with Factiva, apologies. On a second run, I count three articles - one on the Jewish athletes , one about a diplomatic trip to the US and one on a road being named after an Israeli hero being sourced to the Israel News Agency Bwithh 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghitis, Frida (February 26, 2006). "The cartoon wars no laughing matter". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. p. 108. Document AKDG000020060227e22q0005q
  • "Israel has launched a prolonged military operation in the Gaza strip. A UN resolution condemning the action has been vetoed by the US, although Secretary of State Colin Powell said he hoped the offensive would be proportionate to the threat". New Zealand Herald. 9 October 2004. p. B09. Document NZHLD00020041008e0a90001r
  • Dorr Jr., Vic (August 13, 2005). "JEWISH ATHLETES FLOCK TO MACCABIAH GAMES". The Richmond Times-Dispatch. p. D-7. Document RCHD000020050816e18d00029
ITIM is sometimes called "the Israel News Agency".
This is true, but it is also true of Israel Resource News Agency. It is annoying, but not quite as annoying as "The Game" as a search term.
All the evidence I've seens[sic] says this is a one-man propaganda site masquerading as a news agency.
So he is just making up all of the other bylines? Sure, he writes most (maybe nearly all) of the stories, but not all of them (or he puts on the premise that there are multiple authors and no one has presented evidence to the contrary). See my comment on the second DRV for more information. We do cover notable propaganda organs though, so this isn't really a reason for deletion.
Violates WP:V.
Even if there were no third-party sources (which there are), it would still be verifiable by our standards because of WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves.
There isn't an article on the Hebrew wikipedia.
This is so specious that is does not deserve a response.
It isn't notable.
WP:WEB is our guideline for notability of websites and INA articles have been reprinted or used as sources by third parties so it at least meets that section. There has also been coverage of the SEO cartoons thing, so it could be at least merged into Google bombing or whatever.
Kotepho 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This whole thing seems rather suspicious, to be frank. DS 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if "has been a news source for Google News since 2002" can be verified. The Google News page indicates that there are only 4,500 such sources currently so IMO that shows a reasonable amount of attention. Whether there's an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia or whether the news source is generally known in one specific small country is not significant for our purposes here. Bryan 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google News is a search engine. INA is run by an experienced search-engine optimizer. It should therefore not be surprising that they manage to show up there. It is also worth pointing out that Google News has, at various times, indexed questionable "news sources" that look genuine on the surface. An example is OfficialWire, which was Google News indexed and is associated with a very dubious organization called "QuakeAID"; the newswire was also used to distribute Holocaust denial stories which ended up in the Google News index. Our article Google News also points out that they have accidentally indexed white supremacist content in the past. The problem with INA is that, aside from the direct results of their search-engine optimization and marketing, there is very little genuine reporting about INA that could form the basis of a coherent, verifiable article. It appears to me that the crusade of the site's creator is in part focused on establishing the very notability and recognition that it lacks, by gaining an entry in an online encyclopedia. This, in my opinion, weighs heavily in favor of deletion.--Eloquence*
      • Yes, and Wikipedia has an article about OfficialWire (covered as part of its affiliate QuakeAID). The Google News listing does not prove that Israel News Agency is a reliable news source, but it shows up in Google News searches alongside the Washington Post and New York Times, so it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to explain what INA is about. If we can verify that, despite its Google News listing, the INA devotes much of its content to reprints of information released by the Israeli government and op-ed pieces by its founder, it would be appropriate to state that in the article. (Also, I question the characterization of INA as a blog. It lacks several characteristics of the typical blog, like clear chronology of items, items linking other blogs, a blogroll, and comment space for each item. A blog doesn't need to have all of these, but INA has none of them as far as I can tell. It's true that much of it is a collection of opinionated commentaries, but it doesn't look much like a blog otherwise.) --Metropolitan90 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You wrote, If we can verify that, despite its Google News listing, the INA devotes much of its content to reprints of information released by the Israeli government and op-ed pieces by its founder - what would serve as verification? I've already sampled ten articles and shown just that: [9]; the one exception was, quite simply, an advertisement. I don't have the time or inclination to continue this line of analysis. What I can point to, is how much news the INA doesn't cover. In a country where radio news programs are updated by the half hour, updating a website once every couple of days - even if the updates were all genuine news reports, which they aren't - would not sustain a true news agency. There are unofficial Israeli news sites where one can be updated on news and rumours within minutes of events - not trustworthy reports, but timely. The INA is neither timely nor trustworthy. Take for example this story reported by the INA on [www.israelnewsagency.com/israeldefenseforcesnavyterrorism480516.html May 16] , as an event that occurred "earlier today". This story was copied from a government site where it had been posted on May 14, two days earlier. Here is a case where, by not being timely, and not bothering to proofread or update copy, the INA is in fact spreading false information. Is this not ample proof, in your eyes, that the INA is no news agency? --woggly 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • QuakeAID is notable for other reasons (though it's definitely borderline). I doubt an article about OfficialWire would survive on AfD on the grounds that it's been indexed by a search engine. Yes, Google News has put obscure websites (including, as noted, Holocaust denial and white supremacism) on equal footing with the NYT. That doesn't make them notable. As for whether it is a blog or a traditional website, I don't find the distinction relevant. The reason people call it a blog is because of articles [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html like this], which begins with: " It all started with a divorced father in Israel who wanted more hours with his child. A dad who is a children's and father's rights activist... "--Eloquence* 09:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. There have been claims that being a Google News source makes this notable. It really doesn't, I use Google News quite regularly and it does spit out some strange sites for results, I've seen really trivial computer games newsites come back and at worst, forum posts. - Hahnchen 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bryan Derksen and Kotepho, this agency is notable. RFerreira 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a source for that? Come to think of it, do you have a source for it being a news agency by the usually understood definition? I checked the online verisons of some mainstream newspapers; I found lots of credits to Reuters but none to this. Do feel free show examples of this news agency being syndicated by respected news sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can call it whatever you wish, a news agency, a blog, the root of all evil, but the fact remains that it has been shown to be used as a source by major media outlets and is one of very few sites carried by Google News. It is either on the low end of the news agency spectrum, or the high end of the blogging spectrum, but either way it is still notable. RFerreira 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Stanfordandson 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Guettarda 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just seems like a random news website to me, and I trust Danny's opinion on the matter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity blog run by some guy, read by no one. Rebecca 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering it's apparently one of the sites Google News spiders I find the claim that it's "read by no one" to be a bit dubious. Do you have any references to back that up? Bryan 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at the Alexa rank: "231,493". That means little traffic. Remember that this is a web-only "news agency", which is not even in the top 100,000! BTW, Alexa says its ratings are unreliable for sites beyond 100,000. bogdan 08:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the reasons the article is difficult to clean up into a decent NPOV stub, is that there virtually no independently verifiable information available about the INA. It is a one man show, and virtually every search leads back to that one man and his exhaustive efforts at self promotion. Unlike other Israeli operations, about which information can be found in Hebrew and translated, in the case of the INA there is far less information available on the agency in Hebrew than in English. In fact, no information whatsoever! I searched Google using the name as it appears on Leyden's scanned press-card: "ישראל - סוכנות ידיעות" gave 0 results as did "סוכנות ידיעות ישראל". Proving a negative is very difficult, and I don't know how to prove that the Israel News Agency is a non-entity, absolutely unheard of in Israel. I'd wager that a very high percentage of the traffic to the site comes from Wikipedians and members of the Wikipedia Review who visit trying to figure out what's going on. --woggly 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreation of deleted article. JFW | T@lk 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No verifiable evidence of notability that's not caused by SEO techniques. Tevildo 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the fact that a search engine picks it up is its claim to notability, then it really needs to go. More importantly, it's not doing so great with WP:V. GassyGuy 11:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity spam of NN org. —Pengo 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Google News. // Gargaj 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: evidence points to misuse of Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and protect against recreation until Reliable sources exist and article is verifiable. Article also appears to be WP:SPAM in that it's an advertisement masquerading as articles, as has been admitted on the actual website. (Why does the Israel News Agency desire to have a place on Wikipedia? Simply because Wikipedia has become the number one spammer on the Internet. And the Israel News Agency, whose mission since 1995 has been to disseminate news directly from the Israel Government Press Office and features from professional journalists in Israel needs to reach a global public. Even if it means using Wikipedia as a tool to educate the world public on current events in Israel.[www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacorruptioncensorshipisraelnews480710.html]). Article in it's current state fails WP:WEB as This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. [Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.] Article does not give an in-line or external reference to a third party reliable source that is independent of the site and has written non-trivial works that focus upon the site. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Garion96 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gamaliel 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable propaganda organ which has been cited by The Register and The Washington Post, and is carried by Google News, and ensure a neutral point of view through editing. Yamaguchi先生 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kotepho.Comment I'm disturbed by the actions on both sides of this debate. Wikipedia spamming and sockpuppetry are both deeply counterproductive, create more work for editors, and generally disrupt the encyclopedia to no good end. At the same time, Danny's out-of-process deletion of both this and Joel Leyden smack of someone who thinks he knows better than the community, and I find that deeply disturbing for someone who wields power limited only by the Board (in other words, essentially unlimited.) Geni should be commended, though, for a logical and necessary semi-protection of this debate, given the previous behavior of those surrounding this. I think WP:WEB is overly vague, but as far as I am able to discern, this qualifies. Assuming this deletion fails, I recommend the debate be moved there for further refinement of that guideline. I would personally support tightening the guideline and citing specifically the number of republications required and the notability those publications should have. For example, I don't think that Kotepho's blog roundups should qualify. Nevertheless, I believe they do qualify under the current (vague) guidelines.--MikeJ9919 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only two blogs I even mentionare the story from Newswireless.net, but that was reprinted by The Register and the one from one of The Washington Post's blog done by a staff writer. I specifically avoided average blogs as I would never consider them a source for anything in a serious article. Kotepho 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just added this[10] link to the article, which shows the INA being referenced on The Register in the UK. To me that shows reliably sourced notability, but I would like to hear from others. I voted Delete above, but will switch to Keep unless someone explains why this link does not show verifiable notability. Thanks, Crum375 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please add this recent washington post quotation as well. But watch out: you are starting to shed your "neutrality". --JJay 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean show my neutrality - I accept. Just changed my vote to Keep. Those 2 links are good enough for me, unless someone comes up with a really good explanation how they don't show verifiable notability. Crum375 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link is not from the Washington Post, it's from the Washington Post blog. While written by a staff writer, it seems to be a "cast a wide net and find out what people are writing" piece, not subject to general journalistic standards. In my opinion, the Register's little better than a tabloid. The Tampa Bay Primer Kotepho lists is by no means an unbiased journalistic publication. That leaves 4 links of those listed by Kotepho which are, in my opinion, completely valid. Even college newspapers produce many, many more articles meeting journalistic standards. In my mind, the question is whether this should be decided by WP:WEB. I mean, this organization purports to be a news agency. Shouldn't it be judged as one? Unfortunately, we have no notability guidelines for those (though there appears to be a proposed one for US broadcasters.) Actually, in that light, I can't justify calling this a news agency, and I'm changing my Keep to a Comment.--MikeJ9919 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's the blog section of the WashPost url (though not in title), but as you say it is a staff writer. My test with this and the Guardian is not their reliability as fact vetters per se - it is their circulation, which I assume is fairly wide, combined, and hence we achieve notability for the subject. Now, whether INA is a bona-fide news agency is another issue - I don't know if we have enough evidence for that, and in general the present article may need serious NPOVing and verifiable sourcing for its various claims. But for me step 1 is notability and we have it. Step 2 would be to present sourced facts about what it really is. Crum375 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to MikeJ9919, the Washington Post is a major newspaper. If they are going to pay their staff reporters to do web-based news round-ups, for publication on their website, and the Israel News Agency is put on the same footing with Al-Ahram Weekly, Gulf News, The Guardian, The Independent, blogger Juan Cole, and the Middle East Times, then we need this article. I don't live in an area where the Washington Post or NY Times is available in print. Like millions of people, I read their websites. If they are quoting from a news source, then we should have an article on that news source. If this is a news source that influences thinking at the Washington Post, then our readers should be informed. --JJay 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:WEB, Criteria for web content: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I don't understand how being quoted in a couple of news stories (one in a blog section) meets this criteria. Also from WP:WEB "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Nothing you're linking to focuses on the INA, it just mentions it. Has anyone found any independent parties that have, in fact, written about the Israel News Agency itself, as opposed to it simply quoting it? DejahThoris 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and it is obviously in conflict with itself, because the note you quote conflicts with the main criterion. You cannot have an explanatory note at the bottom contradicting the main criterion presented in the body of a stable guideline or policy. But I think you need to take a step back and ask: do we have notability here? Well, if you are cited by the Washington Post right alongside Al Ahram[11], that to me shows notability. The Wash Post online (the root of this url is the Wash Post main site) has a huge reach, and this is clear notability. The issue of whether INA is a bona fide news agency or a part time one-man show is secondary IMO, to be addressed after notability is established. Crum375 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the contradiction in WP:WEB as I see it:
  1. In "Criteria for Web content" is says, as you quote, that the entry in question must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Well, WashPost/Guardian are idependent of INA, 2 is 'multiple', both news articles there are 'non-trivial' published works and INA is 'a subject' (note the preposition 'a' - not the subject - this is a critical distinction for later)
  2. In the same major item, a sub-item states: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" - I think you will concede that a published report on the Wash Post online and Guardian online meet that criterion, as 'newspaper' nowadays includes the electronic version and in any case it would fall under 'reliable published works in all forms'.
  3. Now we come to the contradiction. In the Notes section, well after the Criteria section, even past See also, we have a list of examples/clarifications/refinements called 'notes', where one of those 'notes' states, as was also quoted above: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Note the final focus upon it part. That IMO contradicts the main inclusion criteria section where it says that the item in question must be a subject of the published work, not the subject. I think that in a case of contradiction like this in a guideline, I would assume the main section trumps a note at the end. Of course logic is on our side also: imagine 2 people X and Y invent something important. They get written up everywhere, but always in the same article. If we were to take the footnote version as our inclusion criterion, X and Y would never get their own WP articles, since they were always mentioned together. That's not logical obviously and should be fixed in the guideline.
Now as far as the ratings of Al Ahram vs. INA - I never implied that INA is as well known as Al Ahram, my point is simply that if a reputable, widely distributed source quotes INA alongside Al Ahram, it gives INA notability, regardless of the Alexa ratings. And note that I switched from Delete to Keep, so I have no ax to grind - just trying my best to be neutral. Crum375 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're just reading the same sentence two different ways. I see "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." to mean:
  • "The content itself has been the subject..." That would be the INA. Has the INA been the subject? No. It was merely mentioned.
  • "...of multiple non-trivial published works..." I consider two quotes from INA stories in two papers (one of them in the blog section) to be fairly trivial.
  • "...whose source is independent of the site itself." How could the source of the work be independent of the site itself when the only mention of the site is a quote from it?
I would agree with you if both of the articles were about the INA, but all they're doing is quoting one small piece of an INA story. And considering the INA has been around since 1995 (according to... itself) having two quotes used is incredibly trivial. Eleven years, and that's the extent of the "published works" they've been the "subject" of? Nota-what? DejahThoris 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I agree with you that for 11 years worth of claimed existence it's not much, but the question is 'is it notable today or not' - not 'is it fast growing or not'. Now as to your 3 points, let me address them one by one:
  1. INA being 'the subject': I interpret that to mean as non exclusive subject. IOW, the Wash Post for instance, used the INA content alongside Al Ahram (in fact they are being contrasted, which is even more of a 'use' as opposed to just a listing of similar items), and I would make a case that in this type article, each of the used quotes are an essential and integral part of the article, hence they are a 'subject' that is being discussed there (per my X/Y example above).
  2. Non triviality: Again, at least in the Wash Post example it is being contrasted with Al Ahram, so it is not a 'trivial' mention, as would be the case if it were part of a list.
  3. Independent source: I think the meaning of the criterion you mention is to elimiate a situation where self-promotion, where the notability citation is on a site related to the web site we are evaluating for notability. I don't think the Guardian or the Wash Post are related to INA.
Again, look at the big picture: does this connote notability? Of course. How much? fairly large circulation/distribution/reach. Will readers remember the name INA or follow up its links and learn more about it? Some will, some won't. But you have to stay objective - it does give it a fairly wide audience.
Also, assume that these 2 publications do mention INA in the future (not unlikely). A curious reader (maybe one of many) does want to follow up and find out who in the world is this INA. Well if we delete the entry WP won't educate them any. All they'll have the INA web site itself (and Google-cached WP). Crum375 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One minor clarification: My reading of WP:WEB is that the 'subject' of the published article is the content of the Web site being evaluated for inclusion, not the company or individual(s) that run(s) that site. Crum375 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the INA (or the content of the INA) as being a source for the article, not the subject, or even a subject. I also see the WP:WEB criteria as being there so we could be assured of having sources for a Wikipedia article (which would require the INA to be the subject of the article). Otherwise, how will we write an article? "The INA was once quoted in the Washington Post blog?" The article tells us nothing really about the INA. DejahThoris 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375, rather than explain, I'll demonstrate. Can you find anything about the INA that is in the nature of this article about ITIM? I think that's the sort of thing Dejah is looking for. An independent outside source giving information ABOUT the agency, that also serves as testimony to the agency's role in the big picture. --woggly 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you we don't have a nice write-up about INA, like the ITIM article, which of course doesn't need it for notability in the first place, since it's already well established. The article by Wash Post is stated to be about the international online sources' view of recent events. As such, the mention of INA, with its opinion on the events, contrasted with Al Ahram's, is a part of the article and hence a part of the subject (though of course not the subject). I agree that this article is not focused on the INA content, and certainly not on INA as an entity. The point is simply that the citation there makes INA notable. The question is whether it is notable enough to meet WP requirements. The reason I say 'yes' is simply having seen lots of AfD votes on much more obscure organizations or persons that got kept, that had a fraction of INA's exposure. Crum375 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is notoriously inconsistent. You'll notice I haven't voted yet, I honestly have not yet fully made up my mind. But one thing is clear to me: IF the article stays, then I will hold the people who voted to keep it responsible for the truthfullness of the article. --woggly 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I certainly don't see it as a strong keep, but I try to vote on a binary basis. If it is kept, as you say we must ensure that it is factually accurate per WP:RS and WP:NPOV etc. Crum375 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Woggly. That's exactly the type of article I was talking about. Instead of a non-trivial write-up like that, we're talking about including what's basically a blog because it was a source for... a blog? Look at this another way, if you use Notability (organizations) instead, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." That's my issue- absolutely no "verifiable information from reliable third party sources." I believe that's the essence of what WP:WEB means, that we must have something to use to write the article. If we don't have something "...whose source is independent of the site itself," all we have to base the article on is the site itself. The site of a SEO spammer and PR man. DejahThoris 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As CaliEd has fewer than 100 edits, I've moved his Delete vote to the Talk page per the restrictions imposed on this AfD and previously applied to others. I'll leave a message on his Talk, as well.--MikeJ9919 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term receives 67,200 exact results from Google. Sadly, Alexa's rank of 231,493 makes matters a little out of balance. What should we do with this page? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is sad that a few here chose to ignore 67,200 Google pages relating to the Israel News Agency. Google is accurate. One can actually check each and every page. Compared to Alexa which only provides ballpark figures. Also one must consider quality over quantity i.e. - The Register, The Washington Post, The Jerusalem Post, Google News and thousands of blogs that pick up from Google News. Israel is at war on two fronts today with terrorism. Israel and every free democracy needs the INA and other media which transmit direct feeds from their respective governments. If 67,200 Google results is not notable, what is? Bonnieisrael 14:15, 12 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israel_News_Agency_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137936249"