Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination)


 * 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 SNOW keep. This is not going to happen. (non-admin closure) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Fake news

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NAD (Not a Dictionary) appears to be in possible violation. This page is focused on defining a neologism. In addition, this page also uses sources that are the typical suspects of "fake news" in order to define "fake news". This article topic seems both against policy and logic (probably the reason for WP:NAD). -GDP ⇧  04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination which reveals the nominator hasn't even read the article. It's a real article, not a dictionary. This should be closed immediately and the nominator's status here reconsidered, as they either are making a point violation or seriously lack the competence to know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source ("uses sources that are the typical suspects of "fake news" in order to define "fake news""). Their contribution history, statements, and political POV, all combined, indicate the latter is the case. Therefore they should be topic banned from political articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "This user"??? We have exchanged many messages. At this point you are past WP:PA! On my TP, you have said I "can't be taken seriously" because I get news from Washington Times. You also said in that thread that conservative Wikipedians are incompetent. I took it lightly because I thought that was a friendly discussion. Now you're trying to get a new user posting his first nomination BLOCKED??? -GDP  ⇧  05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent what I said elsewhere (you used far worse sources as well), and don't continually use "new user" as an excuse. You keep going around pushing all the right buttons that cause problems, for some odd reason. I guess you're just very unlucky for a newbie. You've been warned about this by many, and yet you still insist on editing controversial political articles, where you'll only get into more trouble. Try editing uncontroversial topics for a few months to get the hang of things here. Especially learn about RS. The sources used in the article are RS for the purpose. If you really doubt it, you should have used ONLY the article's talk page to work that out, not start this AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not "edit" this article. I simply saw the XFD button and clicked it. It's a two second process. The TP seems a little dead too. I tried posting something days ago with no response. Again, you can let me know what rule I broke. You also seem to be ignoring what I have posted on your TP about this. It's like everything I do, even outside WP, is with evil intentions in your eyes. -GDP  ⇧  05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple Google search shows that this is a highly notable topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, . (WP:SKCRIT) For this reason, keep per WP:GNG: This is the case, examples like the The New York Times and The Guardian are listed below the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Is the nominator arguing that "fake news" isn't a thing? A discussion can certainly take place over whether some "fake news" is "fake" or is "a true, fact-based story that isn't in line with my political ideology".  But "fake news" is definitely a thing.  The article needs some work, but should be kept.Billmckern (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: frivolous nomination. The user who initiated this discussion appears to be lacking the competence expected of nominators. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Emoji_u1f610.svg Competence is not carved in stone, it can change over time. Also, neither the motivation behind a nomination nor the competence of the nominator are directly relevant to the notability of a subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Emoji_u1f610.svg Well then, "Keep" on substantive grounds. Meets GNG (obviously) as a significant cultural phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "A significant cultural phenomenon". That might have just changed my mind. Thanks for the input! I don't know if it makes sense for me to rescind this right away, but I'm very open to it, with a re-wording of this article's lead to appear as strictly focused on a cultural phenomenon. I am in awe of the power of substance and civility, when many users reflexively scream "vandal!" -GDP  ⇧  06:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have discussed this issue with an admin. Apparently, there is no reason to assume this is vandalism, especially since I listed a very valid reason. I will be waiting to hear back more, but these reactions seem to be a little unwarranted. For now, I think I will wait to rescind my nomination, as it has been here for a very short time. -GDP  ⇧  06:33, 20 August 2018 (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.