Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libya Herald

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. WP:GNG has been demonstrated and WP:NMEDIA reflects the on-going community consensus. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libya Herald[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. References provided are of an employee promoting the subject matter rather than independent sources establishing the notability of the organization. JadeBlue (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of this article has repeatedly and significantly been cited by other reliable sources which alone helps it meet encyclopedic criteria per media notability (point 4). Examples (not be considered in any specific order of significance) -
1. Huffington Post as a source of news and not for advertising or publicity
2. Metro.co.uk - again, as a source of news
3. Malta Today - link
4. Times of Malta - link
...and so on! A Google search made via terms "Libya Herald" -libyaherald.com (everything highlighted in BOLD) should be able to provide with further claim of significance.
Undoubtedly, the article requires a lot of details but definitely passes WP:GNG and has sufficient verifiable/credible sources to support the same. TopCipher (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per TopCipher. Also numerous citations in Google Books and Google Scholar. Bad-patches (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My delete will remain the same because those sources above just show reporting done by the newspaper and isn't about the newspaper. Per that page that was mentioned, it is presumed to be notable, but there really isn't a threshold for what is considered significant citations. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that isn't even a guideline - "This page is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.". SL93 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SL93: I concur; my apologies in case my message seemed to indicate that I was referring to it as a set rule. In any case, I failed to provide with any links towards an 'about' of the subject (which is what I meant while indicating that the article requires a lot of details) as the subject came into being about half-a-decade ago and naturally, the first few searches would not support providing other sources talking about the subject per se on top of the results - given the fact that it's an online newspaper; ergo, I went with the point that referred to 'frequently cited by other reliable sources', providing sufficient base not to have the article deleted on the basis of notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please cite the policy that supports your quote for "frequently cited by other reliable sources"? The ones you have cited so far do not mention that anywhere. JadeBlue (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @JadeBlue: Again, regret the confusion. Kindly allow me to classify -
        1. As assured, 'frequently cited by other reliable sources' is not a set rule or policy per se; however, it is an how-to and information page that I've cited to seek a level of consensus among the community.
        2. To address your query, you may further refer to other policy related guidelines over notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV) with which the subject of this article sufficiently provides base not to have it deleted.
        Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so, to sum up, no policy supports your claim in bold letters. One last question, what specific text from WP:ARTN and WP:NRV do you claim to apply here? JadeBlue (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @JadeBlue: Sorry, I have no comment over your summation other than to say I'd have to respectfully disagree and this is what I'm referring to from WP:NRV - objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main rationale is media notability (point 4) Other major factors: Google scholar listings Many citations in Google Scholar and Many citations in Google books, Wikipedia should also encourage free press outlets like the Libya Herald since many countries have excessive control of the press. Even in developed countries governments have gone to great lengths the distort the reporting of the news. In the United States Operation Mockingbird was a big effort to manipulate the news media. Knox490 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you linked Wikipedia:Notability (media) says at the very top that "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." Why are you using it then as a rationale? JadeBlue (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep NewsBank has 2,600 hits for "Libya Herald". I checked and the Libya Herald itself is not indexed in NewsBank, but they are a frequent source for the BBC Monitored International Reports which makes up 1,500 of their hits. Thus, only about 1000 of those are actual cites as opposed to just reprinting of their reports by the BBC. But still, just in April they've been cited as a news source by The Citizen in South Africa, Global Data News, African Manager, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. It seems they pass WP:GNG clearly as well as the consensus at Wikipedia:Notability_(media) (not policy, but a consensus worth respecting). For fun, I also did a Lexis search which turned up over 1000 hits, excluding BBC yielded 279 hits. Looking through these hits, they appear to be one of the best sources for international media on ISIS in Libya. Notability seems clearly apparent. (Note: Also have received profiles of them and their journalists in Al Jazeera and Committee to Protect Journalists). So: Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (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.