Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noticiero Digital


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticiero Digital

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Doubtful and undemonstrated notability. On further review it's written as a right-wing screed and a BLP hatchet job. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an attempt at political demonization. Despite the fact that it was written by the executive director of the WMF, it seems that she is not familiar with our policy on attack pages. The page was written with an incredibly apparent bias, namely against the Venezuelan government and the democratically-elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. It was, intentionally or not, a politically charged attack on the government of Venezuela and an attempt to promote an extreme right-wing sector of the Venezuelan population, the "Venezuelan opposition". Additionally, it promoted the view that Chávez was censoring the Internet (or, in the article's original terminology, "regulating" it) and violates the civil rights of Venezuelans. As pointed out by the nominator, the article also does not demonstrate the notability of Noticiero Digital; there is no evidence that it even has any to assert. --MohammadMosaddeq 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news gives 200 results. Its notable enough for various newspapers to talk about it.  If it isn't written in a neutral tone as Wikipedia policy states it should, then tag it, and discuss on the talk page what should be changed.  Or just make the edits yourself.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of sourcing, and NOT CENSORED  though there are some problems with the language. At the very least, the use of terms like "right-wing" should be sourced inline. A NPOV discussion of politics will necessarily imply something about the politicians, and by the suggestion above, it would be impossible to cover many major news events or organizations   in a country because it would be a BLP violation against the head of state or government.  That's true censorship.    DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, I will work over time on adding Spanish-language sources and trying to clean up the text to match sources, but in the meantime, even based on only English-language sources, the article is clearly notable, albeit was poorly written. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:RS - is El Universal (Caracas) a reliable source, especially considering its anti-Chávez stance? --MohammadMosaddeq 00:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * El Universal is Venezuela's leading newspaper, and meets RS, with editorial oversight, etc. Is CNN a reliable source considering its anti-Bush stance?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I will concede on the one point: it is very widely distributed. However, a search for "Venezuela's Leading Newspaper" with quotation marks mostly gives results for El Nacional. So, I think it can be a reliable source. CNN, well... --MohammadMosaddeq 01:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same deal-- they're equally popular. By the way, what "anti-Chavez stance" are you referring to, since it's illegal in Venezuela for the media to criticize the President?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why are people like RCTV's owner described as a vocal critic of Chávez? Shouldn't the Venezuelan opposition be in jail? Do you specialize in Venezuelan law? If you do, then you are probably correct, but I don't understand why so many people are described as critics of Chávez and are not convicted of any crime. MohammadMosaddeq 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps browsing Category:Human rights in Venezuela will help you understand better. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note; that this article meets notability was never in question, and the AFD was the wrong way to approach the article issues. The article is now fully cited and rewritten, and the AFD should be speedily kept.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plainly notable. I applaud Sandy for the work done on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets notability. And I fail to see any BLP issues - everything appears fully cited. Makes the NYT  Boston Globe etc. .  If the major US papers deem it notable, it is notable IMHO.  If you do not like what the article says, add material which meets WP standards to it. AfD is not for saying "I don;t like it" about articles. Collect (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (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.