Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeMediaOnline.org

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 keep. Bucketsofg 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeMediaOnline.org

FreeMediaOnline.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Website with no assertion of notability. Found some news articles that refer to FreeMediaOnline.org [1], but nothing specifically about it. Deleted under prod and then recreated. I'm on the fence about this one; if somebody can come up with better notability I'll withdraw the nom. RedRollerskate 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Half a drop of Delete in three oceans' worth of merges keeps Keep The article reads like a brochure and it's its author's only contribution but it appears to be a legitimate, benevolent organisation. Perhaps merging it with Newsweek would be a viable alternative? Flakeloaf 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment relisted 1/21/07 to get more votes. RedRollerskate 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete I notice they are no longer active, having been bought out by Newsweek. (Unless there's something controversial I dont see) If they were active I'd have said otherwise.DGG 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-write If anything, defunctness substantially increases the importance of a site or subject being listed here. -- Strangelv 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I can not see what Strangelv means, at all. Something no longer exists, and so is notable? As no reliable, third party, published, non-trivial sources are provided or can be found, deleting this as non-notable is the best thing to do. J Milburn 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mainly addressing DDG's statement that its now purely historical status was a reason for deletion. As for notability, a quick Google search for '"freemediaonline.org" -wikipedia' finds that this site is frequently cited in the 1,110 hits I see. -- Strangelv 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The organization is very much alive and has an active web site. References to it have recently appeared in BBC, International Herald Tribune, and New York Times articles. FreeMediaOnline.org articles are widely republished on the web. Analysis: Kremlin seen cracking down on US-funded radio stations in Russia BBC Monitoring Media, July 12, 2006; FreeMediaOnline.org founder Ted Lipien: "The soft power of information and news is grossly under-appreciated." International Herald Tribune: Voice of America's new leader faces changing times, November 26, 2006; Ted Lipien, who retired in April as a marketing director for Europe and Asia, created FreeMediaOnline.org, a Web site and foundation to support independent journalism. He is lobbying to maintain Voice of America programs in Russia, which are scheduled for elimination under the budget cut plans. “They have focused on the Middle East and taken money away from programming for other regions,” he said. “Once your audience goes down, it creates a vicious circle.” A New Leader at a Voice Long Familiar to Listeners, The New York Times, November 27, 2006. 76.21.127.25 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to FreeMediaOnline.org being bought out by Newsweek was totally false and probably designed to cause confusion. This is a nonprofit, public benefit organization designed to promote media freedom. It is totally independent, not for sale and cannot be bought. Its news web site is active and updated daily. Its reports are picked up by independent media organizations and bloggers around the world. See IHT for information about FreeMediaOnline.org activities[2]; also examples of republishing of its articles: [3]; [4]; [5] Ted22 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The bases for considering the deletion of this very notable organization have been disproven in this discussion. -- Strangelv 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is strongly POV, but founder Lipien's (VOA) history and "free speech elsewhere/or propaganda" nature of the groups activities makes this organization notable. Article needs criticism section and wikify. I added a link to FreePress.net as a source that documents at some length Lipien's history and the founding of this site. Site is clearly up and running as all other current references point to the cite. This can doubtlessly be cured. Edivorce 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• addendum: I just noticed that article from FreePress.net is actually reprinted from New York Times (November 24, 2006 by Doreen Carvajal.) That should help. Edivorce 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• further addendum: The article in the NYT immediately above, the article Strangelv cites above with a slightly different date, and the note (5) cite in the article from the International Herald Tribune all seem to be the same article. I don't want to seem to appear to be over representing sources.Edivorce 22:54, 31 January 2007 (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.