Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Front


 * 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. Most of the Keep comments below either aren't based on showing that the subject meets our notability guidelines or have been effectively rebutted. Consequently I have to give those reduced weight.  Hut 8.5  22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

South Front

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Current sourcing does not show notability. While there are a few borderline reliable sources covering the site, most are non-reliable or self published. Article was PRODded, but this was removed without real explanation. Mdann52 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant, sources independent of the subject that address the subject in-depth. Neutralitytalk 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The PROD was deleted by because it was not even brought to discussion. Nobody should rush to delete articles without consensus. I've added two more sources that shouldn't be considered unreliable, anybody can put more if they find any. I also don't see why all of a sudden this has turned into a big deal, nobody paid much attention to it for almost a whole year, and now it needs to be deleted? With that logic, let's delete the articles for Russia Insider, Bellingcat, Voice of Russia, Kavkaz Center, and Ukraine Today, because they all contain unreliable sources. Sure, we've had discussions that led to a standstill, but has anybody really offered to improve the article until recently? SkoraPobeda (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two sources you added contributes to notability. This is a mere passing mention (not in-depth coverage) while this is a passing mention in an op-ed (again, not in-depth coverage). Neutralitytalk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. (1) The site showing up consistently in Google searches demonstrates its notability, (2) Google is an independent source and (3) Volunteer Marek's comments suggest POV. 114.77.12.93 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The closing admin should disregard this comment. The test for notability is not "Google searches" (that's a notability fallacy); it's significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. Search engine test, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As for the disparagement of Volunteer Marek, see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:ORG. After an exhaustive search, I couldn't find a single sources that gives in-depth coverage to this news organization. Stickee (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to Globalresearch and Thesaker.is, the reporting of SouthFront is as well regularly picked up by Almasdarnews and SOTT.net  . SOTT.net is cited 28 times throughout Wikipedia and Almasdarnews.com 61 times, so I assume some relevance. Will editing the article in this way help - will adding of these sources make it relevant? 6583-GSBE (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but. Before I weigh in, a point. The PROD nomination and deletion (mine) are not relevant to this discussion. The comments about VM's rather obvious point of view are out of place here; we are not discussing his action. The nominator's implication that removing the PROD required a better explanation is also out of place - no explanation is required, and there was one, anyhow.
 * South Front is one of a number of quick-publish sites on crises areas - it appears that their main focus is Syria, but they also cover Yemen and Ukraine. South Front's POV is unmistakably pro-Russian government. This sort of site is relatively new, or has gained a relatively new prominence. This article https://medium.com/@d1gi/the-election2016-micro-propaganda-machine-383449cc1fba#.wd36umax1 (apologies for bare link) identifies Southfront as a unique node in a "micropropaganda network," (not "one of" but the top destination worldwide). In content, SF resembles a number of other sites, including Al-Masdar News (we have a stubby article) - though with the latter some of the personalities involved have identified themselves.
 * There's a problem here. By WP's notability guidelines, the SF article would only be notable if we had significant secondary sources, which we do not, or if such sources exist, but we have not yet identified them. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of the sourcing in the article. By one Supreme Court justice's pornography guideline I know it when I see it - South Front is notable.
 * Options? 1) Delete it. But that's deleting an article that should be notable. 2) Keep as is. That's at odds with WP policy. 3) Modify policy - not a chance, not unless/until this sort of website becomes a much bigger factor, and knowing that discussion of changes to core policy.... 4), and what I recommend, assume that the sourcing that makes this article notable exists, and admonish editors to work on providing it. Jd2718 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - for every reason list in this article: http://thesaker.is/open-letter-concerning-wikipedia-suppression-of-southfront-information/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.184.80 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * — 96.235.184.80 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The closing admin should disregard this comment, from an IP who has made no other edits, because it fails to address actual policy considerations. 96.235.184.80, the fact that an organization wants a Wikipedia article doesn't mean they get one. The fact that they are actively campaigning for a Wikipedia article, again, is irrelevant to the determination of notability. All of the "reasons" that this group presents have nothing to do with Wikipedia's actual notability inquiry, which is: are there significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? The answer is no. Neutralitytalk 02:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per .   -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a promotional article on an unremarkable web site. Sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability in the article, and searching Google News doesn't return any stories about this website or clearly drawing on it as a source of expertise. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, promo piece and no notability for stand alone article shown. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - In 2014, the recently formed group attracted the attention of RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty which devoted a full article to it in connection with events in Donbass (see Pro-Russian Separatist Supporters Seek Western Support on Social Media, by Glenn Gates, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, June 29, 2014). Together with Jessikka Aro's article The cyberspace war: propaganda and trolling as warfare tools (European View, June 2016, vol. 15, Issue 1) containing three paragraphs (25 lines) about SF, I feel the amount of coverage points to a degree of notability that is set to increase with time. Also worthy of notice is an article carried by The Manila Times about a video-clip "titled Current Escalations in the South China Sea, published by South Front Analysis and Intelligence through the website Tactical Clips.com." --Elnon (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It currently fails WP:CORP. If this changes in the future, the article can always be recreated. -- HighKing ++ 19:16, 6 March 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.