Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persian Wikinews


 * 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   delete. The article has only one source, Metawiki, which is not a reliable source. The "keep" opinions are contrary to WP:V, a core policy. and are consequently not taken into account.  Sandstein  18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Persian Wikinews

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable web site —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We have tons articles about all kinds of other Wikimedia projects that lack the strict level of sourcing we might require for other wikis. You don't need a New York Times article to verify that this Wikinews exists, people edit and read it, and that the facts about it written in the article are trustworthy. Steven Walling &bull; talk   18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF The fact that other articles don't meet notability guidelines (and should also be deleted) is not an argument for keeping this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not otherstuff, it's that different kinds of articles have different notability requirements. Notability is always contextual based on the subject and the sources available. It's why we have special enumerations of the GNG for films, living people, etc. To say that we can't have an article about a site in the Wikimedia universe because it's not notable is a ridiculous thing to say, because it's quite to easy for Wikipedians to verify facts about another Wikimedia project even if there aren't a large number of independent sources talking about Persian Wikinews. Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability_(web) There are web notability guidelines, though and this doesn't meet them. If there were Wikimedia-specific web notability guidelines, then this would be a different story. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a classic case where slavish adherence to the rules hurts Wikimedia rather than helps. We don't need ten New York Times articles to verify that Persian Wikinews exists and that people use it. Considering the article doesn't say much else, there is no reason to delete article, since it promotes accurate free knowledge about another Wikimedia project. By deleting the article, you're hurting not helping our goal. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:5 The goal of Wikipedia is not to cross-promote other Wikimedia projects--it's to provide a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (with notable, verifiable subjects, etc. etc.) We could literally create several hundred totally unsourced stub articles about the very existence of all kinds of Wikimedia projects, but I fail to see how that's helpful to readers of a general interest encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree about the goal obviously. What I'm saying is that this article meets our goal. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't understand Steven Walling's contention that we should keep this article because Persian Wikinews exists. No one is denying that. But this simply is not notable. It does not enjoy the necessary coverage in reliable sources. (Admittedly I do not read Persian, but I'd be willing to bet that this is true of Persian-language sources as well as English.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete we must apply the same set of rules for a subject that is a 'member of the family' as any external organisation. The subject does not meet GNG.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I saw how much English Wikipedia has liberty! My article is short but it has Notability and maybe if you search "Persian Wikinews" maybe you don't see many websites but I suggest to you sirs, search "ویکی خبر فارسی" and see how much does Persian Wikinews Notability in Farsi Resource, I think I heard somewhere that Jimmy has said that "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but now seems it's not true. --FaramarzTalk 09:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Of course anyone can edit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't cover every possible topic. Notability needs to be asserted and shown with verifiable and credible third-party sources. The English-language Wikipedia also prefers English-language sources, although this is not strictly necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Explanation: Dear Koavf this article doesn't need to for example has BBC or New York Times sources because the source is ourself (for example I'm an active user of fa.wikinews.org). if you attention you will see there is no point that needs valid source, the article just says Farsi Wikinews is a member of Wikimedia Foundation Projects and does have X articles. --FaramarzTalk 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No Every article must meet the notability requirements. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is a part of our knowledge and also is a part of history, we can expand it. Mjbmr  Talk 09:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really You can't expand it without sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found one semi-governmental ref. that says Persian Wikinews is a "tool of enemies of the government"!!! . tags of this is more interesting:"murders of US and Israel"!"soft war"!"Holy defend! OMG Ladsgroupبحث 11:25, 6 August 2011 (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.