Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Masdar News


 * 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 closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Al-Masdar News

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just another propaganda website like many that have mushroomed during the Syrian civil war. Fails WP:GNG. Not enough in-depth coverage by third-party reliable sources of the subject. Wikipedia rules on notability say: “Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub.” Sure we sometimes use the website to update our Syria war maps & articles, but this doesn’t mean it deserves its own Wikipedia article. Tradedia talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Tradedia talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Tradedia talk 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Al-Masdar News is indeed a new site, but has already been quoted thousands of times by other news vendors including Newsweek, The Washington Post, RT The Independent and The Sun. I don't believe being quoted as a news source is a trivial mention - it shows a degree of confidence being held. Furthermore, I think it is useful for wikipedia readers, who may (rightly) be sceptical of what they read, to find out more about the sources being quoted. Batternut (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I look at the links from the google search that you provide. Most of the media that cite Al-Masdar News are unreliable sources. The notable media you list, rarely cite Al-Masdar News. There are plenty of non-notable news outlets from smaller countries that are cited from time to time by notable news institutions. Also, I don’t see any reliable news institution that provides an in-depth coverage of Al-Masdar News. Tradedia talk 03:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Re "in-depth coverage" - see Esn's comment on 9 April. Re "unreliable sources" - I see some Russian state media and the odd blog quoting AMN, but to assert that most media citing AMN are unreliable needs substantiation. Batternut (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I used it for the first time today, and sure enough, a reader was skeptical. Linking to an article about the source gives context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As referenced above, AMN has been cited very often by mainstream news sources. Perhaps it is true that it is cited more often by non-mainstream sources, but that is irrelevant (and maybe, just maybe, that is because news that is called "mainstream" on Wikipedia comes mostly from countries whose political leaders are involved in the Syrian civil war on the rebel side, and whose journalists do what they need to do to continue getting government access). Esn (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. After a comprehensive search, I can't find in-depth coverage about the aggregator. Some !voters above seem to quote WP:GOOGLE search results, but that isn't a policy-based reason. Routine quotations do not count towards coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Stickee (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (web) is more pertinent than WP:ORG - and news source quotes do not seem to fall under "trivial coverage" as described there. Batternut (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC). Re failing WP:GNG - see Esn's comment below. Batternut (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons given above. Applodion (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Alhanuty (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. In reply to the criticisms mentioned above, here is some coverage focusing specifically on Al-Masdar News from big pro-NATO news organizations (therefore, notable on Wikipedia): From Al-Masdar to InfoWars: How a pro-Assad conspiracy theory got picked up by the far-right (a hit piece written by Business Insider in order to discredit the doubts about the US rationale for the recent missile strikes), How the alt-right brought #SyriaHoax to America (similar to the previous link, except this one written by the Atlantic Council think tank). Those are primarily negative portrayals, but since they are articles in "notable" sources focusing primarily on Al-Masdar News, it should be enough to establish notability, which is the purpose of this AfD. There are also many, many other instances of simple citation of Al-Masdar news by "reliable" news orgs without any further comment on the agency itself. Esn (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're quoting Medium articles to establish notability? Stickee (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's quoting Ben Nimmo of Atlantic Council's "Digital Forensic Research Lab", posting on the group blog. WP:Blogs applies, it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The Institute for European Studies have published his work in that field here. Batternut (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So Al-Masdar website’s 15 minutes of fame in coverage focusing specifically on it, is about how it made up a conspiracy theory that ended up in infamous fake news website InfoWars.com?!   This does not look like the basis for a WP:LASTING notability.  Tradedia talk 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lasting notability by virtue of a couple of years of being noted, ie quoted, by 'mainstream' news media. Batternut (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Often dismissed as a propaganda website, it provides unique content. In fact, mainstream media often seem to cite Al Masdar News, and dismiss it as a propaganda website at the same time. This is from Radio Free Europe "On August 15, Al-Masdar News, an outlet with close ties to the Syrian government’s security apparatus, released photos of a Russian TU-22M3 long-distance strategic bomber, which were reportedly taken at the Hamadan airfield in Iran."  This is from Marketwatch "A second report on the pro-regime Al Masdar News said the attack caused significant damage to the Shayrat air base and multiple casualties."  This is from Newsweek: "As ISIS faced the looming threat of a full-on assault by forces sponsored by the U.S., Russia and Turkey on the group's northern de facto capital of Raqqa, the Syrian army's fifth legion, backed by Russian airstrikes, continued to diminish the militants' already shrinking territory in central Syria, according to pro-Syrian government news agency Al Masdar News."  The sources we tend to call RS, in most cases pro-western, dislike Al Masdar's pov, and avoid it as they can. But because Al Masdar has direct reporting from a Syrian special forces unit, The Tiger Forces, western (Reliable) sources have begun to use it more and more, and there is no sign of that decreasing. This is a borderline case, but with no question which side of the line we are on. Jd2718 (talk)
 * This isn't WP:RSN. We're not evaluating the reliability of the site, just the notability. Your reasoning doesn't include any arguments about its notability. Stickee (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not making a reliable source argument. I wouldn't and couldn't. I am arguing that it is notable, despite a general western media sense of not liking it, and a reluctance to mention it. You, on the other hand, are making an "I don't like it argument." Repeating versions of it after other people's comments does not make it stronger. Please stop. Jd2718 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It does relate to notability: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" where "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic". Batternut (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Esn (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and should be exposed as a pro-Assad tool and propagator of fake news. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This relates more to subsequent development of the article rather than this AfD, but I'll say that even the most casual observers will have noticed by now that much of the "fake news" about Middle Eastern conflicts in general (Al-Masdar doesn't only cover Syria) has been propagated by reliable, mainstream, Western news organizations. In any case, it will certainly be worth mentioning that Al-Masdar's editorial line falls squarely into the anti-Western camp of the New Cold War. Esn (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep meets basic notability guidelines for all the reasons given above Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep GNG, per above. L3X1 (distant write)  21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.