Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oslo Times


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Oslo Times

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for non-newsworthy publication. I am unable to find third-party sources about this online-only "newspaper" that establish notability. Here are the criteria that are laid out for notability of newspapers: WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA. I fail to see how this source meets these criteria. No significant impact, no major awards, not used as a frequent citation source in major scholarly works, no evidence that this is a major source in its field, etc., etc. The Wikipedia page for the editor of this paper, Hatef Mokhtar, apparently had his article started by a marketing company, and I suspect that this article for The Oslo Times serves the same purpose. Recently it was noted that an individual with the user name Prabalta has been editing the article, perhaps under more than one username; the managing editor of this publication is named Prabalta Rijal. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, There were maintenance issues on the wikipedia and citations needed to be added, all I did was add the citations and the photos of the activites done by the oslo times that I hold the copy right for, when I visited the wikipedia page, I saw it required the citations and the logo issues, everything was a mess, so I mostly just added the citations which were mostly from independent sources. If I had known that not anyone who wants to help cant help than I wouldnt have added the citations, but if trying to help an article meet wikipedia standards is wrong than I am sorry. Secondly, if this wasnt an innocent effort to improve the article so that all the information about it listed there than I would not have added my designation in the organization in the page if I had any intention of giving misguided or false information,but my efforts were made to help this article meet the wikipdeia standards and not otherwise. Similarly, in regards to Oslo Times notabilityWP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA as mentioned the oslo times has helped in creating an impact as journalists and human rights activists can voice their views, the interviews conducted by oslo times with various human right activists have been republished by other media organizations as well. The stories done by The Oslo Times have been used to campaign for the freedom of political prisoners like Zeynab Jalalian, To say that the oslo times does not meet the newspaper or media criteria would be wrong. Just because it is not as famous as other media houses featured by the Wikipedia does not mean that it is not notable. It has been used as a source even in news reports and articles by other media houses, , , , these are all independent sources with no links whatsoever with the oslo times. It has also been appreciated for its efforts in protection of the Hauge Log Church National Historic Site,. The Images used by the oslo times reports have also been used by other media sources like the Mirror Daily including NATO,. An interview done by The Oslo Times has also been cited as a reference in the A Discussion Guide for Study and Action - Filmcentralen filmce. Similarly, along with other media reports the Oslo Times report on the sex trade has been used as a reference by 'Equality Now', to campaign against the sex trade, Also the Oslo Times has been referenced in The Plough Share Monitor of Spring 2014 volume 35 (Viewing nuclear weapons through a humanitarian lens,by Cesar Jaramillo . I think this page should be fixed not deleted. There are issues and the tone of the article has to be fixed, but to delete the article instead of fixing it would be wrong and unfair.I really hope that this article is not deleted. Prabalta (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of a single citation from NPR, none of those sources are major or newsworthy. And of the ones I clicked on, they are not about The Oslo Times, they merely cite it for some random fact.  For instance, among your links that supposedly establish notability, you have included this one, which is a link to a thread on a no-name racist forum that calls blacks "niggers" and Muslims "mudslimes" and cites the Oslo Times offhand about one random fact. In other cases, the article has merely copied an image from The Oslo Times. My own academic publications have been cited more often and in more noteworthy sources than The Oslo Times; that does not make me worthy of a Wikipedia article.


 * Now here's an example of the quality of the paper, which just reads like advertising space. This is literally the first and only of today's articles I clicked on. Look at the "editor's note" editorializing about what an incredible individual this is. Nowhere does this article even mention that Stian Berger Røsland has not been the governing mayor of Oslo for months.  Raymond Johansen has been mayor since October.  So the only purposes that the article serves are promotional: 1) to make it look like The Oslo Times got an interview with the sitting mayor (which he is not), 2) to advertise what a wonderful person Stian Berger Røsland is. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Curro2 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America1000 07:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Noticeable even G11 material, nothing to even suggest minimally solid salvageable material. SwisterTwister   talk  08:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has a problem with promotionalism.  I looked at one of the above sources that mentions "NATO", and the entire relevant content is a picture caption which reads, " (Source: The Oslo Times)".  Sources 4, 5, and 6 in the article are a blog and two youtube links.  I also tried to look at the "About Us" page at the official web site, and it had no prose, rather a menu with the title "Explore the Oslo Times".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article about what appears to be a non notable topic.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  06:11, 18 January 2016 (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.