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. (non-admin close) John254 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC) The results was Close. Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and what should be consider before nominating an article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), the nomination contained no reasons for deletion and the nomination only contained reasons to keep the article. (reclosed by admin). -- Jreferee t/c 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Tribune[edit]

Sudan Tribune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested speedy. BanyanTree 09:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Keep, as creator. Sudan has only a handful of dedicated news sources, which explains why there is so little discussion of this site by other media sources, though a review of Google hits shows that it is well-regarded and linked by sites commenting on Sudan. As someone who edits in Sudan-related topics, this site is invaluable. For example when the Eastern Front (Sudan) signed a peace agreement, it was the first in the world to post an English translation of the treaty text. - BanyanTree 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is somewhat established by the article, but the article could do a lot better with some more detail. I would like to hear the nom's reasons for proposing this as an AfD. --Mkativerata 11:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed for speedy deletion under ((db-web)). I disagree but since I have an obvious COI in the article, I decided to list it as a procedural nom, per disputed speedies. - BanyanTree 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I didn't view the history. --Mkativerata 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News[1]. I am having trouble finding substantial discussion in English, as opposed to directory-type listings, even when searching by the name of the founder (Mohamed Nagi). But it's cited in academic sources and treated as a credible news source in many places. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This should actually be a speedy keep rather than a speedy delete. Suggest an early closure on this one. Burntsauce 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Barring the commentary of User:Dhartung above I note neither evidence in the form of references cited nor any arguments based upon policy have been offered. To address those arguments that have been offered:
  • A brief look at Wikipedia:Notability (web) where it reads "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" should make it clear that Google News is trivial re-distribution. More specifically, the criterion for inclusion of articles has no editorial oversight [2] and the criterion for inclusion of sites is only that the content "appears on an HTML site, and doesn't solely promote [the] organization." [3]
  • With respect to the claims that it's cited as a credible news source, this clearly misunderstands the question at hand. While there do exist a handful [4] of examples where the organ is cited, these are not about the Sudan Tribune. (E.g. La zakat au Soudan.)

In the absence of "multiple non-trivial published works" that discuss the actual subject of the article, we cannot write without violating the most foundational aspects of the encyclopedia: Neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Thus delete unless such sources are provided. - CygnetSaIad 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the place that this argument breaks down is in the assumption that there are "respected and independent" media that are working in the same field. To my knowledge, there is precisely one independent media outlet working in Sudan, the Juba Post, since the government shut down The Khartoum Monitor, though the government has tried to shut down the Post as well on charges of "illegal journalism". It is rather doubtful that The Post itself meets notability guidelines, being chiefly known as the source for the "man married goat" story that stayed in the BBC News's most-emailed stories for a year. This is not a plea to go delete that article, but rather to point out that clearly notable topics, in the sense of being "worthy of note" rather than meeting a quantitative standard, sometimes do not meet those quantitative standards. The Sudan Tribune is the second Sudan-dedicated media source that I don't treat as a government mouthpiece.

I thus contest CygnetSaIad's assertion that this article violates neutral point of view, verifiability or no original research. I consider the first and third of these so self-evident from a casual reading of the leads that I won't bother to go into it. For the second, I point to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves", with a list of exceptions that the article appears to fall under. More importantly, CygnetSaIad misrepresents the above three policies as being "the most foundational" by linking to Wikipedia:Five pillars, which in fact states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" as the first pillar. This article is not spam, trivial, indiscriminate, etc, etc, but is in fact about a significant media source on a vastly underrepresented topics. It is encyclopedic. - BanyanTree 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting that it does violate neutral point of view, simply that if there are not sufficient sources to ensure that it does not. You've selectively quoted from a small part of the Verifiability policy. I direct attention to a very clear (and more general) statment from higher up in the same policy document: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
• The article for Juba Post is also very thin. Perhaps these could be merged into News media in Sudan or similar, as they currently do not have legs to stand alone.

CygnetSaIad 05:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Your explanation above for listing NPOV and OR as a concern is one of the most twisted readings of policy I've seen. (2) I've given what I feel is an adequate explanation for why treating this as Uncle Bob's blog from Poughkeepsie would be a mistake. In case there's any doubt about the status of this site, here are the mentions of the site by the United Nations Mission in Sudan, as well as it being quoted by the former U.S. Special Representative on Sudan and appearing as one of two recommended news sites in Barack Obama's statement on Darfur, the other being a United Nations service. (3) Merging two articles you feel merit deletion would create one article that merits deletion, wouldn't it? That is, assuming that you are going to insist that third party sources be required to mention the two media sources. Besides the fact that this article is listed as a reference in some articles and linking those to a redirect to a general media article would be a mildly confusing structure. (4) At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm going to invoke OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's a Category:Student newspapers published in the United States and we're having a deletion discussion on the article for one of the two independent media sources focusing on the country of Sudan? The spirits of CSB initiatives past weep. - BanyanTree 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I read the Sudan Tribune often, as it's one of the few sources that covers often not only Sudan, but borderin countries like Chad. Through the Sudan Tribune it is possible to have access to a mine of information that often can be found in English on the web nowhere else; also it's degree of independence has always surprised me, considering how generally partisan local sources are (the Chadian Alwhida, for example). Also, I'm quite taken aback by CygnetSaIad's argument: BT's correct, I also have to add that "your explanation above for listing NPOV and OR as a concern is one of the most twisted readings of policy I've seen."--Aldux 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, this is another emotive keep argument that fails to provide any evidence. And, as nicely as possible, I'd suggest that you both re-examine the quoted policies. My "twisted" readings are all pretty much chapter and verse:

  1. Wikipedia:Verifiability - If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

  I'll ask a leading question: If there aren't sources about the Sudan Tribune, how can I know if the article is biased or not? I do understand that there is frustration with regards to countering systemic bias, but the appropiate way to do this is not to lower standards for items we consider "worthy" but to ensure that the existing standards are applied universally. I note with dismay that this article still does not have a single external source listed despite the amount of discussion that has taken place on this page. I, like everyone else here, am only interested in improving the encyclopedia. If multiple reliable sources are added that discuss (not reference) the subject of this article, everyone wins. Otherwise, I'd remind everyone that this isn't a vote and there's very little wiggle room with regards to these policies.
  CygnetSaIad 23:50, 23 October 2007 (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.