Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Hour: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:52, 4 July 2017

Police Hour

(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]

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]

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]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *'''Delete''' Basically a dissemination point for police department press releases and 'weird news' stories like [https://policehour.co.uk/2017/06/give-it-a-go-mum-says-3-99-miracle-cream-cured-her-little-girls-eczema/ whatever this story is], nothing more. They don't cite where their stories come from, so that definitely adds questionability to this site. <font face="Myriad Web">'''[[User:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></font> 00:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
-==== Response ====
-Hello we have not intended to publish promotional content and we are a registered media company within the UK, with over 5 million readers, We gave an honest view of what we are about, and if you check the page we have slimmed down the content and the content we write about. You will find no links to our website within the Wiki page, and we do not class as spam as we have edited zero other pages, and have added no advertisement links, these are all reliable sources from media outlets across the UK.
-All the links we have added, have been based on our work, images, videos and words, we are verified on all main social media platforms and operate as a registered media company with a monthly readership of on average 5 million unique readers.
-However if you believe we are not worthy enough, simply remove us,
-personally, we did not see this as promotional 'leading crime and policing news' and 'policing community' is our tag lines, if we were advertising our own url and policehour.co.uk would be all over the post, there is no spamming.
-However, i would allow you to decide that for yourself. We have no gain to spam from Wiki, and no links leading to our own website? our most recent being http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sickening-mass-brawl-street-sees-10692846 and http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/crime/town-man-to-appear-in-crown-court-charged-with-wounding-police-officer-1-8580606 and http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2017-05-08/hartlepool-school-partially-closed-due-to-fire/ being a few.
-As for the Charlie Hebdo video, we sold that video worldwide to all media we authorised to use it, we released the first video - original link - https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3Di-FFx7Xy0Uo&spfreload=10 if
-As for our fundraising claims https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3196693/crowdfunding-site-raises-thousands-for-policeman-mowed-down-in-london-terror-attack-as-he-left-awards-ceremony/
-Have we not cited any of our own links as we believe this would be advertising?
-However you say our main claim is breaking news on another website this is because we have avoided advertising, you will find our content at www.policehour.co.uk, www.twitter.com/policehour and www.facebook.com/policehour we write our own news, too
-further fundraising that your team claim is incorrect https://twitter.com/BBCEssex/status/846669003699486720 - https://twitter.com/BBCEssex/status/846969291849240576
-We have only edited this content a number of times this evening as we wanted to slim the content down with one of our claims being accused of being an advertisement, we wanted to ensure this was not the case.
-All of the content we submitted has previously been approved to be on Wiki, to be Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." and an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.
-We have provided over 17 verifiable links to evidence and we could provide much more, we stopped updating recent media and features because that would be 'spamming' and self-glorification'
-as in Wikis own words, An organisation is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. therefore we believe Police Hour is Notable and not a spammer as you suggest.
-Spam claims - we have no links to our website directly, and have not edited any other pages, therefore blocking access would be a total abuse of admin rights, and you would not be a worthy admin based on those grounds to block us from editing, slimming down and reducing our content, if you feel that is the moral thing to do, restrict our access and block the account i would question your role and reasoning for being an admin on this page.
-It would only take a simple check of my profile to see these claims we are spamming and adverting are completely incorrect and offensive.
-[[User:XNewsUK|XNewsUK]] ([[User talk:XNewsUK|talk]]) 22:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 :'''Comment''' You're declaring a clear [[WP:COI|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. <font face="Myriad Web">'''[[User:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></font> 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 *'''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. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 01:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)