Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawar News Agency


 * 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 DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hawar News Agency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed without addressing  the issues for reason of:. PROD concern was: ''The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Redirect: After reading Batternut's argumentation on the talk page, I support this move, insofar as the article should be tranformed into a redirect for Media of Syria. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Redirect: replacing this article with a redirect to Media of Syria#Hawar News Agency, where a summary of the Hawar News Agency exists, is the best option I can think of. Batternut (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe Hawar News Agency is notable enough to merit an article. There are many references to the ANHA organisation in mainstream media outlets, including BusinessInsider (link), The Independent (link), ABC/Fox (link), Reuters (link) and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfNoMeme (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep Hawa News Agency is mentioned by tens of international sources.   It's even used by published books. Ferakp (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ---Please use Keep or Merge or Redirect or Delete rather than Support or Oppose.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I usually loathe to relist a third time but currently it's not clear whether this should be kept or redirected and another week of discussion might yield a clearer consensus on that.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Does seem to have enough sources, and these sort of articles' detailing the affiliations and possible biases of media outlets are useful (since the outlets themselves are rarely upfront about it). The suggested option to delete and list it only on Media of Syria is not a correct option - that article is essentially a list article, and, as I understand it, should not have organisations on it that do not already have notability enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per: WP:GNG. As noted above, Hawar is mentioned by many reputable sources which makes it notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:41, 25 July 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.