Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Hour

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. As an aside, speedy deletion under G11 occurs because of how an article is written; merely being written by a COI editor is not sufficient. Also, being a COI editor is heavily discouraged, not plainly prohibited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police Hour[edit]

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

Non-notable internet news organization. Their main claim to fame seems to be breaking news that gets reported on elsewhere, but I am skeptical. They say they broke the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and yet the source they cite doesn't make that claim (see this talk page post). Most of the article consists of citations to minor/incidental coverage in other sources that Police Hour is not responsible for, aside from a few photo and video credits. The "fundraising" section has a small amount of coverage that actually mentions Police Hour directly, but not nearly enough. — Earwig ^talk 21:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a dissemination point for police department press releases and 'weird news' stories like whatever this story is, nothing more. They don't cite where their stories come from, so that definitely adds questionability to this site. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being entirely promotional, spam or any other term you'd choose. Conflict of interest issues are also a worry, so I wouldn't object to someone else making a stronger call than this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We did not believe this was promotional, however, we have removed any content you deemed promotional and will be willing to work with the admins to ensure any further content deemed promotional or spam is removed. it was not our intention to have this written as promotional. sorry if this has broken the rules regarding this. could anyone offer any suggestions? if you require or believe any other content is promotional please let us know, our content is sourced via ourselves within our newsroom by our team of editorial staff and then we share this on our website and national media request usage, hence our links to external media, other news is shared at the request of policing press offices on urgent appeals. many thanks for your help and i would appreciate if the page could be kept even if it is greatly reduced we would be willing to work with the team to ensure this is compliant and ensure this is not a victim of a speedy Deletion... We would further add that if you are based within the policing community that Police Hour is notable especially within London and Northern England XNewsUK (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: XNewsUK (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment You're declaring a clear conflict of interest, which we don't allow here; thus this article might easily meet a WP:G11 speedy deletion as XNewsUK is the original creator. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to be blocking you for a shared use account, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a shared use account? XNewsUK (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "sourced via ourselves" and continued references to "we" and "us"; only one person is allowed to utilize an editing account, as Shawn linked to you. And I'm seeing no improvement in the copy at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you deleted a large amount of text without letting anyone know in this nomination and shifted my comment to a completely different place in the nomination to make me look like I was responding to myself, which is absolutely not allowed. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Clearly your minds are already made up, tbh we have no gain from this page, so you might aswell remove it, what i do object to is the way in which you have ripped apart our company, in a malicious and targeted way. If we are a promotional account why were we approved in the first place, very little edits have been made and none linking to our registered media site, clearly the system of appeal, therefore, does not work, we have had no gain from having a wiki page. your minds are already decided, no one will pop up in support of this page or any other page as clearly this process is not fair. to be honest we are not that bothered about wiki so you might aswell remove it. what we are bothered about is the offensive tone, the slander and comments about out website and claims that have been made about this, Please remove as we do not wish to be part of such community that everytime we comment you threaten a block. clearly, this is not a fair process and this is our last comment on the matter. Nate the comments you make have no reference to our wiki page, and we were sent a message via Wiki to appeal this so of course it is going to be our selfs, if you believe companies do not write their own wiki pages you are clearly deluded, this is common practice by all companies and all people within wiki, and it is also common for companies to edit these as the way the site works malicious comments and phrases are added by anon users, We were offered this page as an appeal, if you cannot allow us the decent for a response Simply remove it. Further we removed the long text because no one listened to our defence, clearly you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and you know fine well this account follows all rules, this is not spam as you have suggested or promotional and it is certainly notable, however if you are entitled to your own views, but not being within our target audince you would not be aware of who we are and we would fully accept your small minded views, We would therefore request the page is removed, we have alreadt attempted to remove ourselfs from this communuty as we do not wish to be apart of it because of the vile cluture it has bread as demonstrated within all the messages we have been sent on a number of areas across wiki, for clarity once again this account is accessed by one person only and is not shared, we is as in the company, clearly the page we are talking about Police Hour is a company, all repesentations have been made as a we because you are completely attacking our company, We will not be adding anyfurther comment or response. XNewsUK (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

"'Remain page was not created by XNewsUK only edited they are verified as a news outlet on Facebook and Twitter, having read their news myself they are very notiable and newsworthy. Despite the page coming across as spammy a bit of guidance would fix this. Slugworm146 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Slugworm146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With respect, the page was created by the XNewsUK account. I don't believe anyone here is doubting the claim that they are a news outlet, but rather questioning the notability of the news outlet that they are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see notability established here. Only one of the sixteen news citations listed was about the subject of the article. Some or all of the others were using media hosted at the Police Hour site. A news source that uses a media company's services is not the same as news coverage of that company. The other three citations included one directory listing of police resources that had an entry about Police Hour and two crowd funding charity sites that Police Hour was participating in. pellea72 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 9 July 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.