Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Report (2nd nomination)

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 consensus is clearly to keep as a notable hoax. or parody site. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Report[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Further, currently is just a list of headlines that got picked up by other news agencies thinking they were legit or that others debunked. Only one sentence about the actual website. Page content is not actually about page title. Sources on page do not discuss the website/company itself or its notability. I think National Report is likely notable enough to have its own article, but current article needs WP:NUKEANDPAVE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree! Lets delete it!Yup69 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Many don't realize it is a satire page and the Wikipedia page for it is the best place to explain that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.137 (talk)

I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. Jerappelle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no improvement in the article since the beginning of this year. No one is working on it. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP by all means rewrite it. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deleting the article. At the very least, people need to know this is a humor site, not a site for actual news. bhumburg — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting it also. I used Wikipedia to verify that the site was satirical. It has reach and is notable.125.237.32.170 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does this fail GNG? Just look at the list of times it's fooled more reputable news sources, not to mention large portions of the Internet. The Banksy arrest story is trending like mad right now. If you can't load up your Facebook without seeing a prominent mention of the site's current story, it seems pretty notable to me. —Robotech_Master (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite if needed. AfD is not cleanup. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be correctly called what it is -- a hoax site. From Wikipedia: A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. In no way does it fall within any definition of "satire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should NOT be deleted. It's a public service announcement to those who mistakingly think the National Report is a legitimate news source. It is not. It is also NOT satire. It's nothing but lies and people need to have access to information so that they know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenietart (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Queenietart and Sarahseehoward: Whether or not it's satire is not what's being discussed. That's currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not for public service announcements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @evergreenfir, whether or not it is satire is most certainly being discussed and it NEEDS to be. It is inherently part of any discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. It is noteworthy and deserving of an article precisely BECAUSE it is not satire. And for goddsakes, when someone calls it a public service announcement and you aren't processing that purely as a metaphor, it should not surprise me that you continue to believe National Report is satire. @Queenietart is completely correct. These articles exist to deliver accurate and true information on something like National Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; meets WP:GNG. Sources about news services being fooled by the stories have a fair amount to say about the website, certainly more than the "trivial mention" low bar of GNG, and there's been a full Verge article published since this nomination, covering the National Report's misinformation over Ebola in detail. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was going to close this as keep, but then I noticed that a large majority of !voters were either new users (one has only one edit, which was to this AfD) or anons. I don't want to make any accusations (so please forgive me if I'm wrong), but I'm beginning to wonder if there's some sockpuppeting going on here... --Biblio worm 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 17:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to what seems obvious to me is either canvassing/meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I've relisted this so a wider variety of editors may review, giving us a more genuine consensus view. Dennis - 2¢ 17:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis that that this entry is not notable but also "not suitable for an encyclopedia." There is a tendency to misuse Wikipedia as "advertising" due to the fact that entries are prioritized by the google search engine. This site falls into that category. BTW i have never seen the "National Review" prior to finding it here on the deletion page. Lfrankblam 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Keep This is a well sourced article about a controversial publication. A rewrite would be nice.--Auric talk 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am for keeping the article as well, I am not logged in but i am a genuine wikipedia reader (referring to the comment made on top), and this is the first voice I tried to edit so apologies if probably it looked like suspicious. In my opinion the wikipedia voice must stay, I'll just say again what I said in the first afd: National Report had some influence over italian media where they reported the news as a true event, which I believed it too until I found this wikipedia page proving it was coming from a satirical website, and I guess that's also one of the main reason of wikipedia to exists, check if sources are reliable. The article was an indecent stub and I tried to rewrite it keeping it more consistent with the other articles on wikipedia so other might know as well as I did. Also, I partly agree labelling National Report an hoax website, some articles are too well written and too real and can believed as true, others (e.g.: Kim Jong-un being kidnapped from ISIS) are just genuine parody which can be identified as such at a first read. I think the website it's not written from a single person, therefore has different style of parody but certainly once you browse most of the articles you realise it is a parody site. No canvassing at all involved 84.252.233.186 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site needs to be easily recognized as a hoax site. Rewrite OK, but must be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAtheistReverend (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks clearly notable WP:GNG to me. Here, for example, is a Reuters article on October 29, 2014 entirely about this fake news website. I am One of Many (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (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.