Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fake news websites

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. The article is now supported by more than one reliable source, which appears to have been the main concern for the delete !voters. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fake news websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this list is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It might be, but I'd like to see what other folks opinions are. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. All the sites in the article you mentioned are notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After some thought, changing my sentiment on this one. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've struck my redirect !vote above and am switching to keep. Others added a few sources so as not to be based solely on Zimdars's list, so with WP:TNT no longer necessary, I changed the lead to no longer list where they came from (that's for the sources to do, after all). I also removed the table, the inappropriate external links, added/removed some wikilinks, added some sources, and pulled some content from separate articles that have been written. We now have a list based on several reliable sources like Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, All Things Considered, Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Reports, and there are a ton more to draw from. Still needs improvement, but it's moved to a keep for me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per User:Robertinventor's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2016 (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.