Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Narrow majority for undelete, relisting on AFD has been suggested. --Myles Long 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency

I am uncertain why this article was deleted. Danny's deletion comment is "vanity page by banned user", however it previously easily passed AFD, Google test shows a considerable number of hits. Google News lists it in searches. AFD discussion doesn't appear to have involved sock puppets. IMO, it's no less notable than Wikitruth or Google Watch. I am asking for this to be undeleted. No longer asking for it to be undeleted, but I think that this deletion review is still valuable. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I believe Danny probably just made a mistake while deleting other suspect pages by banned users. I personally see no need to relist given the clarity of the first AfD. Xoloz 04:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no automatic relist needed, the previous AfD seems clear. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Has anybody bothered to discuss this with Danny? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but then this wasn't an office action. If it was, I would have talked to him about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You should have discussed it with him anyway? What is lost by you taking some time to talk to Danny BEFORE you go running to DRV? Stop being so immediatist! Kelly Martin (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Danny is a busy guy - he's even said "I CANNOT spend another one-third or more of my time explaining every phone call to the community." Not contacting him for every little thing is quite alright. He'd clarified that this wasn't an OFFICE action so a normal deletion review was absolutely the right thing to do - and is now leading to an acceptable above-the-board conclusion. Haukur 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I thought DRV was for deletion review, which is what I am doing here. I was not aware that after every deletion Danny makes that I would like reviewed I need to speak to Danny (no, I'm not going to do this with all deletion decisions Danny makes). Why don't you stop being so reactionary? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Wikitruth is a dubious precedent, but I agree that this needs to be discussed with Danny. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC).
• Keep deleted. This was *not* deleted mistakely (The matter is sensitive, so Danny sent his reasoning in prviate to the arbcom). The guy who created this (a) a search engine optimizer, so his google count is *vastly* inflated in proportion to how important he actually is, and (b) is basically a publicity hound, and he's been harassing Woggly over it to no end. He's using wikipedia as a publicity stunt. Raul654 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And we should know this how? Was this, or was this not, an Office action? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of vanity created by blocked user. Just zis Guy you know? 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Per Danny's comments below, all the stories on the home page carry Joel Lyden's byline including www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html, so I'm guessing this is as described: editorial masquerading as a news service. Functionally indistinguishable from a blog, in other words, and carrying at least some highly questionable content. Deleted articles as created were self-evident spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted' -- There are issues at stake here that I will not discuss publicly. However, here are several questions: 1) If INA is a prominent news agency from Israel, where is their article in the Hebrew Wikipedia? 2) A review of the INA webpage content shows that it is primarily editorials--does this meet the definition of news agency that Wikipedia gives? (Witness his May 12 piece, where he insinuates a link between WP and al-Qaeda, for instance--hardly the stuff of legitimate news agencies) 3) To date, information about the INA has been provided by its founder and people associated with him only--does this meet the criteria of WP:V? Danny 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, I trust that when you perform Office actions that you are doing it for reasons of a highly sensitive nature. Was this, or was this not a deletion done under Office actions? If not, then why did you go beyond the previous AFD? And why am I seeing issues that are "at stake here that [you] will not discuss publicly" if they are not done under Office Action banner? Why is taking something to ArbCom an acceptable reason for deletion that bypasses consensus on AFD? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not done as an Office Action. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted' -- the original was a personal vanity puff-piece and reads as badly (with an overkill of external links to make it look acceptable). No justification to retain/reinstate. --Vamp:Willow 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Danny. Ral315 (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Danny's reasoning independent of unvoiced concerns. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Alexa rank of 223,720 for an online news agency seems poor and indicative of low notability. By comparison visir.is, a news site published in Icelandic (a language understood by about 300,000 people) has an Alexa rank of 33,225. Haukur 11:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The "Israel News Agency" is nothing more than a blog, and not even all that interesting of one. Putting this on Wikipedia serves no encyclopedic purpose. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I realise I listed it, but then this is deletion review, something I thought needed to be done. I should note that while I listed it because I wanted the deletion action reviewed, I'm satisfied that this is an article that should probably have been deleted anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looks like another vanity "news agency", as detailed above. Also, I am aware (and would, generally, trust) that Danny did not simply delete it on a whim. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I personally feel that from a pragmatic viewpoint this would best have been handled through a new AfD with whatever information had come to light since last time. Summary deletions by Danny, no matter how justified, cause a near-automatic republishing and promotion of the deleted content on Wikitruth. Haukur 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's their business. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but there's no reason to provide them with fuel where an AfD will do the job. Haukur 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You speak as if they treat AfDd articles differently. I don't believe they do. Any removal is "censorship" to them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen them repost any article that was deleted through an AfD. (I may have missed something, of course, and I'm not defending their actions.) Haukur 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Mackensen, I would prefer it if we didn't take into account Wikitruth when making deletion decisions. Republishers of libel are hardly places of reputable opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I've changed my opinion on this due to Danny's comments. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Danny's reasoning. Robert 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I voted to keep it last time, but considering that 1) the creator has been banned and 2) it has no interwiki to he wiki I now find it rather suspicious. Unless proof other then Google test can be provided, I don't think I can vote to undelete.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and in future cases (i.e. with similar deletion log summaries) discuss with admin who performed deletion before listing here. AnnH ♫ 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Out of process deletion. -- JJay 01:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, then verify, if it turns out to be a hoax/vanity page: redelete. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per in camera reasoning. — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In camera reasoning that you have discovered, or in camera reasoning because Danny said so? Just asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (which in this case also means "overturn the AFD closure"). Haukur's finding above about comparative Alexa rankings is compelling. My own investigation of the google results leads me to dispute its applicability in this case. I find a mere 357 unique hits, the vast majority of which are blogs and personal websites which fail to meet the standards for a reliable source. It's almost always a bad sign when the Wikipedia entry shows up on the first page of hits. In this case, the AFD discussion got it wrong. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and protect from recreation, to be on the safe side. Proto||type 11:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please it is notable and why was it erased in the first place Yuckfoo 00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Xoloz as an out of process (and unwarranted) deletion. Silensor 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete with the utmost despatch. Deleted out of process for untenable reasons. Admins must obey consensus just like anyone else. Grace Note 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Grace Note. bbx 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Danny. The original AfD was aggressively lobbied by the author of the article and the owner of the Website, with somewhat misleading reasoning. Some of the "Keep" voters then were his friends, to say the least. His main concern was to promote himself and his Website, and he was not looking for honest and positive contribution to WP. The Website is clearly NN in Israel. Noon 01:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and verify. This is an unwarranted deletion. Moreover, this is notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and verify content, double check sources. Make sure it follows WP:NPOV. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above, relisting does not seem necessary. Yamaguchi先生 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted non-notable unverified infomation. gidonb 10:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, see block log. --Rory096 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* Being banned from Wikipedia is completely and absolutely irrelevant. Silensor 03:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, since it's apparently notable and wasn't an office action. If it were an office action, perhaps we'd have a different situation, but since it wasn't, we should be able to address any of the issues that cropped up instead of some unilateral delete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete its a really tough call... yeah it looks like a blog... but Google News uses it as a source, that simple fact makes it a notable news agency... I think we need to verify and source everything... possibly restart from scratch, but we need some sort of article on it.  ALKIVAR™ 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The little verifiable information we have been given appears to point to the subject's notability. The only proof I see against it is Danny's word, but since he refuses to discuss the matter (or go through the proper channels for sensitive matters), I don't see that I can honestly give any other opinion. --Ashenai 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and then AfD it again. Follow the process. Everyking 07:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.