Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNN Breaking

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. A veritable army of likely canvassed/paid/SPA/COI/socks has been mobilized to show up here and add their !vote, all on the Delete side. But rather than engage in speculation about who is a legitimate, unbiased participant in good standing and who isn't, most of these Delete views can be discarded based on their lack of reliance on P&G. This leaves us with a clear consensus to keep the article. For the avoidance of doubt: claims about libel or defamation should be emailed to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. We will not engage in discussing legal accusations across Wikipedia pages. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BNN Breaking

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Thoroughly checked the page and saw a lot of editing dispute. I guess this article does not meet the Notability criteria. The lead section does not have any citation. Few references are used many times. The article gives me impression that it is not written in neutral language.HxxxM07 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. HxxxM07 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say it passes WP:GNG: there is significant coverage in multiple indepedent sources, including Business Insider, multiple local newspapers, and an Irish national newspaper (though perhaps none of them have consensus as reliable sources--BI doesn't have a consensus (WP:BI) and none of the others are major news outlets). The lead section not having citations is fine, as the points are cited in the article body (as per MOS:LEAD). I would not advocate deletion on an article for not meeting WP:NPOV, as the article could be improved to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Hong Kong, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion atm, but condense and merge to Gurbaksh Chahal is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete If this article and company is notable no page on the platform should be deleted. I just saw the article's history and its already messed up. As per my experience here the company is not having a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just same articles taking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff and the whole article is rather opinion than an encyclopedia material. I will still try to find and add if any reliable source with indepth coverage about the compnay exists. NatalieTT (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — NatalieTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please note that this could potentially be a case of a bad-faith nomination, as the founder of BNN Breaking has a long history of hiring freelancers to whitewash their pages. Upon examining the history of this article, there seem to be some attempts to remove the controversial part. Please mail me or paid-en queue for more details. GSS ^💬 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote Keep, except I guess I should recuse myself since I (along with @Lepricavark) was mentioned by name on a BNN Breaking article critical of Wikipedia:[1]. I think we should keep the article for the benefit of people who want to determine whether a news site is bogus or not. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like GSS, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nomination in light of Chahal's extensive history of chicanery. If he doesn't like the way that his organization is covered in this article, maybe he should clean up his clearly dirty organization. Unfortunately for him, being crooked is not a safeguard against being notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I have a feeling that this AfD is going to attract some suspicious delete voters, similar to user NatalieTT, who was inactive for over 3 months and suddenly became active to !vote here. GSS ^💬 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be par for the course given prior abuses at the Chahal article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chisme, did you check the tags at the end of the article text? They're quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it @Gråbergs Gråa Sång written; Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David Gerard, Ravensfire, and DanielMichaelPerry. It's quite funny though! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's just enough sources, which span a period of several years, that the article warrants keeping. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bnn breaking is a horrible news source. that doesn't mean they are not notable, there is sufficient coverage. She was ^afairy 02:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I avoid contributing to such situations but here something is cooking. I reported a lot of socks and people silently who try to prepare a case against a specific topic or shed personal agendas rather than based on the policy. I believe a lot of paid editing is involved here and the article may have been created to secure a place on Wikipedia to get more hype. I will send the evidence to concerned authorities as well. I can see that only San Francisco Chronicle and related sub sites which are not even in the list of reliable sources listed have interest in this non-notable company that is not even a news site but a personal blog with pathetic publicity stunt type of news coverage used as click baits. I'm on a clear side on Delete but I will keep an eye out and see if someone shows more coverage instead of bombarding it with keeps.The Informer Sally (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — The Informer Sally (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete It really seems that this article is meant to defame and slander a particular person. After properly going the edit history I found that it seems the whole intention of this article to ensure bad name directed towards 1 person. I hereby change the vote to deletion, as soon as possible. 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)~ Bonadart (talk) — Bonadart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete/Comment I was searching for something on Google and landed here in search of information. I edited and even created pages in the past but then left because even after spending months to create pages they were removed for being 'non-notable' and after reading the article in question and reading the points here I felt I should leave my analysis as well. There's not a single news article on Google news section that discusses the subject in detail check here [2]. It doesn't meet WP:GNG even. G19US (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — G19US (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not a very well-formed nomination for deletion (a lead doesn't need citations...), and the multiple accounts that just show up here, arguing that it's somehow defamation, that's more than a little odd. Plus, there is sourcing, of course, even though much of it is negative. Is it enough to keep? Should it be merged into the owner's bio? I don't really know, or care, but it's pretty clear that there are outside interests here with these articles, as this also shows. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly checked the sources, and I don't see any in-depth coverage about the subject. The cited sources are emphasizing the event in particular rather than subject itself, and if exclude those sources there left nothing. Also, other than San Francisco Chronicle, Business Insider, the cited sources are not that much reliable.Atighot (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Atighot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, multiple sources over multiple years describe this website. Also want closer to note the wave of 'delete' votes from accounts that have made little edits outside this topic, considering the founder's history of recruiting paid editors. wizzito | say hello! 00:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article needs to be around to keep receipts on the Internet to inform the populace on what BNN Breaking is doing. It is notable and has been covered by multiple RS. The wave of "delete" comments also seems suspicious given BNN Breaking's own attempts itself to whitewash this article. Having failed that, I believe their new tactic is to get the article about BNN Breaking deleted. You can read about their attempts here on their site, with an article bashing Wikipedia: BNN Breaking EXCLUSIVE: The Dark Side of Wikipedia - The Billion-Dollar Web of Deception, Lies & Elite Manipulation. Merge with the founder's article is no good. This needs to have its own article to inform and educate the public. -Object404 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dropping my two cents here, this page seems to have been created to defame the entity. The editing done on this page seems to be targeted to tarnish the image of the company and to destabilize the article itself. As per my experience here, the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just the same articles talking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff, and the whole article is rather an opinion than encyclopedia material. I have not encountered any Wikipedia article about a media company—or any company, for that matter—framed in such a manner that it meets inclusion criteria. Additionally, a preliminary search revealed a lack of visibility on Google, casting further doubt on the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee nn yy (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ee nn yy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

"the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source" -> This is a lie. The subject is covered in-depth by The San Francisco Standard.

-Object404 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nominated this article for deletion only because it lacks significant coverage in my opinion. Many statements are backed by websites that cannot be considered as trustable. I highly suggest the cleanup of this article to maintain Wikipedia standard if it is kept. Vital information should not backed by blog article, instead please use trustable sources if there is any. M66JX (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking us to believe that after nearly a month of inactivity which was preceded by a warning that you appeared to be making undisclosed paid contributions, upon your return you coincidentally just happened to stumble across this article and nominate it for deletion. And the fact that this article is about a company founded by a man with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors on his own biography is yet another coincidence because you totally weren't paid for this nomination. I don't believe you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Existing sources show enough coverage of BNN to meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Chisme, I had intended to recuse myself from this AfD. However, since those affiliated with the subject have shown no compunctions against pursuing their conflict of interest via poorly-disguised paid !votes, I will formally register my !vote in favor of keeping the article. The sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG whether Gurbaksh Chahal likes it or not. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly agreed with Object404. Also, all delete votes seem so suspicious and funny to see all of the voters just awaken from hyper inactivity all of a sudden and come to Wikipedia to vote on deleting an article. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does note meet WP:NORG.i think this article shoun't be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcruexz (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whereas, the Wikipedia article, bnn breaking exhibits a tone that suggests a close relationship between the writer/editor and the subject matter. The article also fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's significance, as single references is used multiple times. Therefore, BNN Breaking violates Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and notability.Palucy (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Palucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and cealrly looks like promotional article or paid article.Thatbombayboy (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Thatbombayboy (talk) •[reply]
Delete this artical looks like act of defamation under Libel and the nature of the edits gives the impression that editor have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but editor have not complied with [mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.]Kingaayaan (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Kingaayaan (talk) •[reply]
Oh, the irony. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (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.