Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Suggested sources


 * 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   wrong venue. Already at MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sources

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relevant reasons for deletion: 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * See WP:SOAPBOX

Suggested sources purports to provide a list of "preferred" sources, without ever establishing any objective standard for why certain sources should be preferred over others, and without establishing who prefers these sources or why these sources belong in the "suggested" list. Even worse, this article links its concept of "suggested sources" to the Wikipedia concept of "reliability," giving the misleading impression that the reliability of the listed sources is unquestionable. This has resulted in a situation where sources are recommended seemingly entirely based on political POV and vague concepts of "quality" which are mostly tautological.

Since August 2013, a request to establish some reliable basis for inclusion or exclusion of sources from this article has persisted on the article's talk page without any solutions being brought forward. I have attempted to spur discussion of some set of objective rules for exclusion (i.e. Why suggest MSNBC but not Fox News? Why suggest CNN but not MSNBC or Fox News? Why recommend all the British left-wing news publications, but explicitly recommend against all the British right-wing news publications? Why recommend print and television sources, but not any established electronic-only sources?), but still nobody with opinions about which sources to include has been able to provide an apolitical, objective reason for inclusion or exclusion.

Without any objective rules, I don't think it's possible for this article to be anything more than a WP:SOAPBOX, in which editors seek to include sources that they politically agree with or personally like, and exclude or explicitly recommend against sources that they politically disagree with or personally dislike. All of the sources under discussion do, at one time or another, meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. But to have an article devoted to a subjectively cherry-picked list of sources gives the impression that Wikipedia is not a politically or institutionally neutral project. It is not Wikipedia's mission to decide which sources are most "suggested" for people to read to inform themselves about the news. TBSchemer (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This belongs at WP:MFD and should therefore be closed immediately as a misplaced nominaton. Everymorning   talk  18:54, 21 January 2015 (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.