Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Initiative


 * 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__. given fundamental disagreement about the independence and reliability of sources. I don't think anything would change with an additional reslit. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Pearl Initiative

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

There is no RS content about this organization from which we can write a proper Wikipedia article. All the sources are propaganda outlets and non-independent low-quality outlets. This page and related pages have been rife with WP:COI editing that seek to promote various subjects. Thenightaway (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. News outlets such as Gulf Today and Gulf News have to be careful not to offend their government, but they are independent of it. They engage in self-censorship, but once that is taken into consideration, they are generally reliable. The Pearl Initiative does work that is similar to that carried on by other national and regional groups that promote good corporate governance. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If these outlets are incapable of critical reporting on this organization, how can they possibly be reliable sources? How can we construct a Wikipedia article on the organization when we exclusively rely on pseudo-news outlets that can only report nice things about it? Thenightaway (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Kind regards –––Face-smile.svg Àvî Râm7 (talk)  08:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

@Alexandermcnabb: what do you think? This is your turf (or sand) -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, @A. B. - I'd usually get a notification from the UAE Project but not this time for some reason. @Eastmain is bang on the money here - Gulf News et al are indeed RS (although some editors like to scatter phrases like 'pseudo-news', which is not ideal - they're the national media of the country and while they might not be your idea of perfect, they're all we got and, unless you'd just like to delete the UAE from Wikipedia, they serve in the vast majority of cases.) - and this article as such passes WP:GNG. Does the article need a good, solid edit, a clip around the ear and sent to bed with no tea for being puffy and promotional? It does - but, all together now, deletion isn't cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "they're all we got" is neither a RS argument nor accurate (see WP:RSP for the countless RS that could be used). It's wonderful news for authoritarians who can repress actual journalism and expect Wikipedia articles to mindlessly repeat the government line which is reflected in the only news outlets permitted to exist. Thenightaway (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They haven't been deprecated, despite a number of attempts. They are the UAE's news media. You tolerate Fox and GB News? You can live with Gulf News and The National, trust me. Meanwhile, they are RS and wholly appropriate for WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep for clarity!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, especially Alexandermcnabb's comments about reliable sources.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The threshold standard for notability is "significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject ." I don't find the sources here to be "independent of the subject." Neutralitytalk 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete because the subject fails Notability. That is not to say it is not important or notable in the general sense of the word, but that it does not meet the consensus standards set on Wikipedia for what notability is: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To say, "this thing is clearly notable, but it is only sourced by non-independent outlets, so those outlets will have to do" is approaching the question backwards — Denying_the_antecedent by preconceiving the subject to be notable and then deeming the sources independent to justify this claim. Rather, we must look at the sources and from that determine whether or not the organization is notable.
 * And, while these sources may be reliable, in the sense that they don't report untruths, they certainly aren't independent. Here is a source assessment table:


 * I disagree with your analysis of the sources. The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject. See Alexandermcnabb's comments above.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject." is the core issue here. And, BTW, both publications in that there table are privately owned and not 'state-sponsored' AND the table omits every other source in the article! All a very partial view, I have to say! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right about them not being state owned. I still have a hard time finding that Gulf news, at least, is independent and reliable; see here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gulf-news. Can you give me WP:THREE and maybe I will reconsider. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The question of explicit state ownership is immaterial. What matters is that news outlets in the UAE, whether owned by the state or not, do not have press freedom. Thenightaway (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per Neutrality. Andre🚐 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject probably meets on notability in my opinion based on doing a collaboration with the UN under former head Ban Ki-moon and received a grant from the Gates Foundation, among other activities. The problem is more with support from references which is a concern of verifiability rather than notability, but again we can probably lean more towards keeping the article rather than deleting it based on the existing coverage discussed above in addition to any other references online. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2023 (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.