Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tek Fog

Add links
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. WP:SNOW keep. In this case, a potential rename is better handled at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Fog[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tek Fog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the wire (India) is not credible source Lelemera (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Block evading Sock.[reply]

@Devesh S N Bhatta:, @AgentOrangeLeaf:, @Changisgod:, @Dhawangupta: plz join the discussionLelemera (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Block evading Sock.[reply]
Lelemera, pinging only those who shared your view at PROD discussion is blatant WP:CANVASSing. hemantha (brief) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep: You have provided only one reason for deletion: which is to challenge the credibility of one of the sources used the article. So, there are two things to consider here. First, is the source in question (The Wire) credible? Nothing has been provided to show that it is not. The burden of showing that is on you. You cannot just say "not credible" and expect people to believe it. Please provide adequate reasons and explanations, otherwise this AfD is just wasting time. Second, there are multiple other sources reporting on this - so even if the Wire is not accepted as a source, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the article should be up for deletion. (Edit: I have changed my vote to keep per the discussion below - and would like to point out that the nominee is consistently failing to comply with WP:AFDR, including voting twice on their own nomination, engaging in blatant canvassing, etc. This should be a speedy keep}}. - Naushervan (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naushervan: It should be noted that most, if not all, other sources reporting on this have either reported the findings of 'The Wire's investigation' (such as the Deutsche Welle, Quartz and Le Monde reports mentioned by Venkat TL in his keep vote) or reactions of opposition parties/leaders on the findings of 'The Wire's investigation' (such as The Hindu, The Tribune, Deccan Herald and Telegraph India reports mentioned by Venkat TL in this reply and this edit). Rockcodder (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC); edited 07:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me and anyone else who reads the article, especially the subsection specifically devoted to the Wire's investigation, that the Wire investigated this, as a result of which multiple independent and reliable sources have reported on their investigation, as well as the app itself, and the fall out. I don't know what summarising the Wiki page here will do, but thanks. - Naushervan (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat I have voted only once. the first one is nomination for deletion and the second one is my vote.Lelemera (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here , the nomination is counted as 1 vote. There is no need to vote again second time. Read WP:AFDR or ask any admin.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lelemera, that section that you quote, also says "But, ought to pass WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per RSN discussion. The wire ought to pass as WPRS. However the news outlet shall not be used for anything tangentially connected to Indian politics et alLelemera (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Tek Fog app controversy or something along those lines. Let's say that this app doesn't actually exist OR that no reliable source is able to prove anything beyond what The Wire has alleged till now. Even then, the controversy remains notable as there are enough reliable sources about opposition leaders' statements regarding this app. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Please follow WP:AFDR and use the given options. Rename is not there among voting options. This is WP:Articles for deletion discussion. There will be nothing left to rename if the article is deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Cancelled my old vote, revoted -MPGuy2824 (talk)
    While WP:AFDR doesn't list it, rename is a valid vote/outcome in practice. hemantha (brief) 14:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The controversy about the app now is notable, even if the app is later proved to be non-existent/a hoax. I'd recommend renaming the article to Tek Fog app controversy. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, frivolous nomination. The app has received widespread coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The Wire is also certainly RS, not that it would even matter here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At the time of nomination there were enough WP:RS refs in the page already. With no proper justification from the nominator, it's hard to see what the issue is here. hemantha (brief) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have looked at the references. The Wire features heavily, however, what it says is reported on in multiple independent reliable sources. This renders the article as being about a topic that passes WP:GNG.
    Under these circumstances it is not even relevant whether Tek Fog exists, or even does what the article says. The controversy about it has become notable, and that controversy is not going away
    It may be that the article becomes retitled to be about the controversy, but that is a matter of content. There are no policy based reasons for deletion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a concensus that The Wire can't be used as a reliable source for any controversial issues for obvious reasons.. Just featuring in google searches doesn't make The Wire a WP:RSN, votes defending on that basis too should be considered null. And when I go through page, particular article too is nothing more than a advertisement of The Wire report again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this Tweet which ensures that this app is around for a long time and the recent coverage by other sources at least makes the subject notable. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Aman Kumar Goel, the tweet you mentioned is the only basis for the wire investigation. All the investigation of The wire has no other basis than this tweet. 45.124.142.2 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As clearly laid down in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248, The wire cannot be considered a source of valid information in matters related to politics. All other articles quoted are derived entirely or in part from The Wire and associated media. The article as written possesses no merit and should be deleted. CapnJackSp (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC) — CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Those citing the RSN thread fail to mention that only 2 editors claimed that The Wire is unreliable, and the quotes specifically used are only from 1 editor's viewpoint which do not create any sort of consensus. In that same thread, 3 others gave The Wire the thumbs up at least in terms of reliability. And regardless, the coverage shown by Venkat clearly show this topic meets WP:GNG. This really seems like a case of a certain group trying to get this article deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Moving the article to Tek Fog app controversy is an option, but this is a fresh story so I'd wait a bit to see how it plays out. Jumpytoo Talk 00:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the controversy is growing up, it certainly passes WP:GNG, besides that, if it gets deleted it would be like deleting a scam from history. Regards --Arunudoy (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A propoganda application to spread misinformation. The source (The Wire) seems well researched and comprehensive. Neurofreak (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wire is indeed a reliable source, they were the partners of Amnesty International in publishing the pegasus 0day victims leak. Regards Otnatsirk Maharba (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination was made by an account set up to evade a block. I suggest it was not made in a good faith. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248, The wire cannot be considered as a relaible source related with politics it is politically lest biased. 45.124.142.2 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the current news and happening and in particular, the case where the wire conducted the investigation and brought forth the information/report, is reliable especially considering the backing of multiple other sources on the article. MehmoodS (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is now a major news item reported by multiple major news services (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-12/india-s-tek-fog-shrouds-an-escalating-political-war-against-modi-s-critics). Expect a spike in search for 'Tek Fog'. If deleted, it will simply be recreated. Opinions on validity of The Wire is secondary at this point. Dheerajkakar (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this point the status of The Wire is irrelevant. To take an extreme example, just because The Daily Mail is a deprecated source does not mean we cannot write about the Daily Mail and its notable stories. There's widespread, growing reporting on this, passes WP:EVENTCRIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although some modification may be required for the WP:NPOV. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:33, 13 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tek_Fog&oldid=1166566736"