Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Front

South Front

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Current sourcing does not show notability. While there are a few borderline reliable sources covering the site, most are non-reliable or self published. Article was PRODded, but this was removed without real explanation. Mdann52 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, sources independent of the subject that address the subject in-depth. Neutrality^talk 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PROD was deleted by Jd2718 because it was not even brought to discussion. Nobody should rush to delete articles without consensus. I've added two more sources that shouldn't be considered unreliable, anybody can put more if they find any. I also don't see why all of a sudden this has turned into a big deal, nobody paid much attention to it for almost a whole year, and now it needs to be deleted? With that logic, let's delete the articles for Russia Insider, Bellingcat, Voice of Russia, Kavkaz Center, and Ukraine Today, because they all contain unreliable sources. Sure, we've had discussions that led to a standstill, but has anybody really offered to improve the article until recently? SkoraPobeda (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two sources you added contributes to notability. This is a mere passing mention (not in-depth coverage) while this is a passing mention in an op-ed (again, not in-depth coverage). Neutrality^talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) The site showing up consistently in Google searches demonstrates its notability, (2) Google is an independent source and (3) Volunteer Marek's comments suggest POV. 114.77.12.93 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should disregard this comment. The test for notability is not "Google searches" (that's a notability fallacy); it's significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia:Search engine test, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. As for the disparagement of Volunteer Marek, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments to the person. Neutrality^talk 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. After an exhaustive search, I couldn't find a single sources that gives in-depth coverage to this news organization. Stickee (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to Globalresearch and Thesaker.is, the reporting of SouthFront is as well regularly picked up by Almasdarnews [1] and SOTT.net [2] . SOTT.net is cited 28 times throughout Wikipedia and Almasdarnews.com 61 times, so I assume some relevance. Will editing the article in this way help - will adding of these sources make it relevant? 6583-GSBE (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but. Before I weigh in, a point. The PROD nomination and deletion (mine) are not relevant to this discussion. The comments about VM's rather obvious point of view are out of place here; we are not discussing his action. The nominator's implication that removing the PROD required a better explanation is also out of place - no explanation is required, and there was one, anyhow.

South Front is one of a number of quick-publish sites on crises areas - it appears that their main focus is Syria, but they also cover Yemen and Ukraine. South Front's POV is unmistakably pro-Russian government. This sort of site is relatively new, or has gained a relatively new prominence. This article https://medium.com/@d1gi/the-election2016-micro-propaganda-machine-383449cc1fba#.wd36umax1 (apologies for bare link) identifies Southfront as a unique node in a "micropropaganda network," (not "one of" but the top destination worldwide). In content, SF resembles a number of other sites, including Al-Masdar News (we have a stubby article) - though with the latter some of the personalities involved have identified themselves.

There's a problem here. By WP's notability guidelines, the SF article would only be notable if we had significant secondary sources, which we do not, or if such sources exist, but we have not yet identified them. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of the sourcing in the article. By one Supreme Court justice's pornography guideline I know it when I see it - South Front is notable.

Options? 1) Delete it. But that's deleting an article that should be notable. 2) Keep as is. That's at odds with WP policy. 3) Modify policy - not a chance, not unless/until this sort of website becomes a much bigger factor, and knowing that discussion of changes to core policy.... 4), and what I recommend, assume that the sourcing that makes this article notable exists, and admonish editors to work on providing it. Jd2718 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for every reason list in this article:

http://thesaker.is/open-letter-concerning-wikipedia-suppression-of-southfront-information/