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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sahawat Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete Just like the IPMG News article (recently deleted) and the The International Press and Media Group currently at AfD, the only sources are affiliated. Article created by a WP:SPA and edited by SPA and by a banned sockpuppet, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. AfD and PROD notices are being removed by User talk:86.187.31.9 and a brand new SPA User talk:Toni W. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

The above states “all sources are affiliated” yet there are clearly sources from a wide variety of notable third party sources such as radio shows, government records, copyright registers and many other independent sources. Not really sure why such random and inaccurate taggin with AfD is allowed but oh well. Clearly not a genuine AfD tag in any way. 85.255.234.132 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.234.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP the reasons given by in the AfD have nothing in reality and zero truth. All references are perfectly fine and multiple third party references from government sources included. Not affiliated in any way. A clearly notable and worth while article being repeatedly targeted by sock puppet user high King and his many aliases. If there are issues with this page it should be improved rather than deleted as is Wikipedia protocol this AfF notice makes no sense at all and should be removed. 85.255.234.132 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.234.132 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you strike a "vote" if this is not a vote? It's handy to see "keep" repeated here as it simply indicates the nature of the argument, not "a vote". --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 10:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:TPO and WP:AFDFORMAT. Sam Sailor 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

Agreed with above. The above states “all sources are affiliated” yet there are clearly sources from a wide variety of notable third-party sources such as radio shows, government records, copyright registers and many other independent sources. Not really sure why such random and inaccurate tagging with AfD is allowed but oh well. Clearly not a genuine AfD tag in any way. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

It should be improved rather than deleted. — Ann Cane (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence that the subject is notable. Of the sources cited:

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] are pages on the organisation's website and not independent
• [7] is the website of a sister publication owned by the same organisation and also not independent
• [8] and [9] are podcasts and therefore not reliable sources
• [10] is the company's Twitter account, not independent or reliable
• [11] is the official record of the company's registration in the UK, as literally every registered company in the UK has one of these it is meaningless for determining notability (not to mention the fact that it is based on information provided by the company in the first place)
• [12] is a directory listing, I suspect the text is based on information provided by the company and directory listings aren't considered significant by WP:CORP
• [13] appears to be a dead link but it looks like another directory listing.

I can't find any significantly better sources myself. As the company links prominently to this article on their website I suspect that some of the people defending it here have a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't sum up the sources better myself. Likewise I see no evidence that this company/newspaper is notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2018 (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.