Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consortiumnews

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. Whether a redirect to the founder Robert Parry (journalist) is appropriate is a separate matter; nothing here precludes creating such a redirect. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consortiumnews[edit]

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

A news service. This article was speedily deleted per WP:A7 (no assertion of notability). The subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 28 decided to refer the article to AfD to determine the topic's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be secondary coverage that says anything about it. It's just other news sites quoting it or in one case recommending readers make a donation.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consortiumnews doesn't seem to have ever been mentioned by other news sites. NickCT (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. What coverage I can find consists of republication of articles published in Consortiumnews, citations to things published in Consortiumnews (usually on the topic of conspiracy theories) or coverage of the founder (who has an article). It was argued in the DRV that citations and republications confer notability, they don't. Hut 8.5 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Noting, also, that per WP:INHERITORG, the founder's having an article on him is irrelevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge [1] is a very solid source, but there isn't much else that really discusses the site. It *is* heavily referenced (and briefly discussed) in a book by Oliver Boyd-Barrett. Also referenced heavily in [2], [3] and other books. A redirect is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: It's actually articles by Parry being heavily referenced. I can't see any other articles from Consortiumnews being referenced. Would I be correct in assuming, then, that by redirect, you mean to the Parry article (which would make sense given his profile)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most are by Parry at the Consortiumnews. I don't think there is enough for an article separate from Parry's article, but I do think there is enough we should be redirecting to Parry. And I do think the coverage of this at Parry's article could be a bit more detailed I've updated my !vote to include merge, though not as detailed as the text that you reverted (which was major overkill in terms of content and format). Hobit (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Parry is notable, but the article on him kept getting hijacked as a COATRACK to include opinions deemed to be UNDUE for the relevant articles by pointy editors whose content was rejected by both policy and consensus. I have no qualms about the article on Parry being developed to reflect that he is a respected, if subversive, political journalist using quality references supporting his notability. In fact, there was a redirect in place to the Parry article, but Consortiumnews changed its name slightly earlier this year, which has probably broken the redirect. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG - no coverage that is significant by third party sources. -- Dane ^talk 05:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Russia Insider has an article praising it, isn't it commentary?--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 9 December 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.