Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suggested sources

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep and note, this is a wiki-anyone can edit/improve this at anytime. — xaosflux  Talk 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sources


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) 18:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is not an article, therefore the given rationales for deletion are not applicable. Also, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so opinions are welcome; it is not intended as a definitive list. ansh 666  18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in the case of essays, violating the standard of What Wikipedia is not generally leads to deletion. See WP:SOAPBOX. TBSchemer (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything violating that, either. As far as I can see (and I participate in AfD a lot), it reflects common practice per WP:RS. And, since I've never seen anyone cite it, I'm pretty sure it doesn't influence anything; the page has very few pageviews. ansh 666 19:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained that violation extensively above. The choice of which sources to include and which to not include there is inherently a WP:SOAPBOX. This essay is cited by this other essay, which in turn is cited by this Wikipedia policy page. Shouldn't this page be deleted for the sake of preserving the perception of neutrality of the overall Wikipedia project? TBSchemer (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * keep. Far from perfect, with lots of omissions and biases, but as an essay, not a policy or guideline that's fine. If it were too POV then userfying it might be appropriate but I don't see that here. It's not seen lots of objections, has been expanded and improved by editors other than the initial creator, and also referenced in discussions by editors other than its creator.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And WP:SOAPBOX is a content policy, i.e. about articles. It is irrelevant to WP: content. It is especially irrelevant when discussing essays which per Essay are "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and may "only represent minority viewpoints". That is they are explicitly allowed to express a point of view, even one not widely supported by others.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to an extent. Stuff like user subpages complaining about administrator conspiracies or such often gets deleted under WP:SOAPBOX. But regardless I don't think it applies to this essay. ansh 666 20:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In nearly 4 years, only 7 editors aside from the original author edited this essay before I got there. All objections to the content of the essay have gone unaddressed. How would you overcome the massive political bias that this essay is recommending for the Wikipedia project? How could such an essay ever NOT be POV, given that any cherrypicked selection of sources will always exclude other reliable sources? TBSchemer (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What 'massive political bias'? I see news sources from across the political spectrum, where I recognise their bias. Nothing too extreme, no major omissions except for the very patchy geographical coverage. It's not perfect and never will be. I'm sure it will keep getting better; maybe slowly as it continues to be largely ignored; maybe quickly as it gains some momentum and so attention. But it's fine as an essay now. No need to delete, no need even to move into userspace – it's long past the point of being owned by any one editor.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's a list of suggested sources, not a comprehensive list of sources that are acceptable. The only "sources" it discourages are tabloids. Perhaps your perception of bias is more reflective of your own views rather than that of Wikipedia and its editors'? ansh 666 05:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What "news sources from across the political spectrum"? There are 12 US national news sources listed there. According to Wikipedia's article on media bias in the United States, 8 of those sources are viewed in surveys and academic studies as left-wing biased. 1, The Boston Globe, is owned by one of those left-wing sources. 1 of those sources (PBS) is funded primarily by the government. 1 (the Chicago Sun-Times) was founded deliberately in opposition to a right-wing news source, the Chicago Tribune. 1, the Christian Science Monitor, is a tiny tabloid representing a fringe group. There are 0 quality sources listed that represent either a right-wing or libertarian perspective, even though these two perspectives together represent approximately half of the United States public. TBSchemer (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the section you linked to? It begins "Conservative critics of the media say bias exists" but later says "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy". The section as a whole has arguments on both sides; I would not hazard to say either is correct. But I would say a more important criteria for adding sources is quality of reporting, which is largely independent of political leaning; you have good reporting on the left and right. To address any balance issues go to e.g. Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers and pick out a couple on the right that could be added.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is a very good suggestion. I will see if the article can be improved that way. TBSchemer (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The applicable principle here is to improve rather than to delete this user essay. I have found the essay helpful in past consideration of what sources are likely to be helpful for improving articles (that's how the essay got on my watchlist, which in turn led me to this deletion discussion), and in my experience as an editor, it is precisely looking for better rather than for worse sources that does the most the improve the articles on Wikipedia, nearly all of which still need a lot more work. It is commendable that besides the official content guideline on  reliable sources for the project, there is also this user essay that attempts to provide examples of sources known to be reliable for editing a broad variety of articles in namespace. My !vote here to keep the essay is an indication that I am willing to make efforts to  fix it and to confer with our fellow Wikipedians about how to make the essay useful guidance for both new and experienced editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't present a neutral perspective to guide new editors to only select sources with one particular political ideology. How could you possibly fix this essay when the source list has been constructed so subjectively and politically? How would you get other editors to set aside their political ideologies and agree to an more objective standard that allows for a politically-diverse set of sources? TBSchemer (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A reasonable essay, no convincing case has been made that this essay does not conform to policy.  Policy requires the highest quality sources and does not require an artificially imposed "balance" based on the political demographics of a single country.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:33, 22 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.