Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair Observer

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. v/r - T P 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fair Observer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with sources, but most added are pretty thin or don't mention at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A two year-old company (I think it's a company) is unlikely to have had an significant impact on society and the lack of reliable sources support that. The article is also quite promotional in nature ("Fair Observer is enhancing its current web platform to incorporate innovative technologies to both aggregate and disseminate news, analysis, and multimedia content from all over the world" is quite an nice demonstration of WP:PEACOCK). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - 1. Why are sources from outside the U.S. not considered reliable? Press coverage from other countries seems to reinforce that is has had a significant impact on society. 2. Have you visited the website and seen the partners and advisors who have signed on to the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.249.133 (talk • contribs) {{subst:spa|75.69.249.133

"'Do Not Delete"' - A promising international project that deserves attention. Spreading well researched information, new concept to present different points of view on one matter (they call it 360°-analysis). Indeed a very high ranking board of partners and advisors that also contribute articles. Even to think about a deletion of this project on wikipedia is against any kind of wikipedia-spirit. Fair Observer is providing access to information you'll hardly find elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.255.99 (talk • contribs) — 77.185.255.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete - The age of the company doesn't determine notability per se. This article may need improvement, but the list of available references has by no means been exhausted. WP:INSPECTOR TraceySwans (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - This entry has improved significantly. Fair Observer is a notable company that deserves to be given credit for its accomplishments. Mchldvdjhnsn (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)— Mchldvdjhnsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DO NOT DELETE:The Fair Observer is providing a platform for a frank discussion on issues and ideas affecting the world, which not many organizations can claim. The advisors on board demonstrate the acceptability this bold and dynamic idea has received in a very short period of time. Deleting an independent and innovative idea like Fair Observer is like deleting the very ideology of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank71 (talk • contribs) — Mayank71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass our guidelines for organizations/companies (the article isn't exactly clear and specific, to say the least). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search brings up nothing to show that this company is notable at this point in time. None of the sources on the article itself show notability as almost every single one is a primary source and the two that aren't usable. One of them only briefly mentions the company and its founders while the other one only shows that the company has been nominated for a non-noteworthy trip/internship to Silicon Valley. Not all awards are noteworthy, so just winning a trip to Silicon Valley is not in itself enough to show notability. It also doesn't help that it's also only a press release, which cannot be used as a reliable source at all. (It wasn't released by the company, but press releases aren't usable as reliable sources regardless of who sent it out.) Also, just because a company has been around for a few years doesn't mean that this gives the company notability. Sources from other countries would be usable as long as they were independent secondary articles that were by reliable sources, which the GSVA press release isn't. Another point to make is that just because something might be useful doesn't mean that it merits an article. Just because you think it deserves an article doesn't mean that it actually passes WP:CORP. The standards here are strict and we can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or because it could help advertise for the company. None of these are valid reasons to keep an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete" per above. --S Q 03:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.