Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigate Europe


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Investigate Europe

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations,  and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Mdann52 is probably right. We tend to be more lenient with articles about sources anyway, because they have immediate practical value to editors (primarily when we are evaluating the reliability of sources for use in other articles).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mdann52. After reviewing several sources in the article, it's clear that criteria 3 and 4 of NMEDIA for newspapers are met, and possibly 1 too. (And yes, that's "just an essay", but in this case it provides a compelling reasoning for keeping this article. Also applicable is the similar essay WP:NNEWSPAPER, which clarifies that Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources.) Toadspike   [Talk]  05:37, 12 June 2024 (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.