Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delfi.lt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 souces have been added. Eluchil404 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delfi.lt

Spam. Ny866 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral This could possibly be the Lithuanin version of CNN.com-hard to say from the website and any English language ghits. 205.157.110.11 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Should stay. This not only main news portal in Lithuanian net, but most popular Lithuanian site all together. Also it is important factor of popular and internet culture in Lithuania. Because users can comment every news story, this site is constantly subject of debate over freedom of speech in Lithuania. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, judging from the number of links it's not that marginal. Besides, this AfD was Ny866's first edit in wikipedia ever, which makes me think that he/she might be working for the competitors simply. //Halibutt 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - main website in Lithuania. It might be poorly written, but it is importan subject. And it has alexa rank of 1,102. Renata 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - In the course of a half-hour in Ny866's first-ever edit session, he visited seven articles, tagging three for deletion, two for copyvio, and two for speedy deletion (one of these latter had the speedy tag removed without comment by the contributor; he gives no reason for the speedy on the other article). I haven't examined all the noms, but I will note Alexa rates Delfi.lt at 1,102, which is frankly the highest rating I've seen in researching these noms. Tychocat 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - as per Renata. eLNuko 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Main Lithuanian news portal, one of the most popular Lithuanian-language sites. It needs a re-write. Andrius 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What it needs, and what this AFD discussion needs too, are sources. How are non-Lithuanians to know that this is the "main website in Lithuania"? Solely because the article says so? Please cite sources. Taking editors' words for things is what we specifically do not do around here. A boatload of editors coming to AFD and saying "This is an important web site." does not an argument make. Please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ok, Alexa traffic rating is 1,102 [1], Statbrain.com shows an average of 1,649,617 visits per day [2], Google shows 12,400 sites linking to delfi.lt [3], Yahoo brings up 693,841 sites linking to Delfi.lt [4] Altavista shows 266,000 sites linking to delfi.lt. BBC country profiles shows Delfi as on of 3 "News agencies/internet"[5]. I hope that that's enough. Andrius 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that is not enough. Did you read the links he gave? This fails WP:V because no sources are cited, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Citing web stats is only for backing up an already strong arguement...not to stand alone AS and arguement. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The only one of those that is a good start is the last. (The rest are just statistics that are as unreliable as the Search engine test.) But all that it says is "news portal". Please find something that describes this site in more than two words. This is Wikipedia, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need to be able to have an entry longer than "mostly harmless". ☺ It needs to be shown that there are the sources available to do that. Uncle G 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • An archived article on Delfi has a list of the most popular Lithuanian webistes in terms of unique visitors and it shows that it is, in fact, the most popular Lithuanian-language webiste in terms of unique visitors with 697,752. The research was carried out by Gemius Baltic. The news-story (which is already cited in the article) can be found HERE. Oh and the study was carried out in May of 2006. That isn't exactly what you asked for but I think it is still useful. Andrius 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The reason that WP:WEB excludes material that is from the subect itself is that it isn't necesarily trustworthy. You're looking for the right sort of thing, though. Here are some hints on where to look: Do the Baltic Times, VŽ, Respublika, or other newspapers have any feature articles about this web site? Has anyone done a study of Lithuanian web sites in a journal article that discusses this web site in detail? Is this news service discussed in studies of Lithuanian news media? Uncle G 20:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The site seems notable enough based on the statistics and other sites linking to it. Yes, citations are needed, but AfD is for deleting pages about non-notable subjects, not for deleting articles that are missing citations. Paddles TC 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You are missing the point. We have, as with so many AFD discussions about web sites, a whole raftload of editors coming to the AFD discussion and arguing nothing more than "This is an important web site.". This is not an argument. Whether something is important to individual Wikipedia editors is not a criterion for either inclusion or deletion. It isn't an argument that is acceptable when a load of forum participants come to defend an article on their discussion forum, and it isn't acceptable here. As we regularly point out to the discussion forum participants, the way to argue for keeping the articles on their discussion fora is to cite sources and show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. This should be easy if the web site is as notable as you claim it to be, so please do it. Otherwise, the closing administrator has nothing more to go on than yet another AFD discussion where there is nothing more than a boatload of editors asserting "This is an important web site." and citing no sources, or indeed saying no more than that bare assertion and not basing their arguments upon our policies and guidelines. Such discussions usually end in deletion. Uncle G 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Paddles that is incorrect. I have seen plenty of AfD's closed as 'Delete' for articles that are missing citations and/or sources. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm having a hard time getting worked up about it, but no sources means no entry. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:V. None of the keep noms brought multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties to the table, to meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I'm only willing to go so far to try beef up an article that the original writer won't. Tychocat 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This is only up for deletion thanks to Systematic bias. Alexa Ranks this as the 3rd most popular :ithuanian website, and gives it a respectable global rank of around 1,100. There are references too, which is the most important thing, even though the sources are little known to most people in english-speaking lands. Bad nomination? LinaMishima 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After some prodding and encouraging editors in the right direction, this article now cites sources that demonstrate that this web site satisfies the PNC in WP:WEB by being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources other than Delfi, including a conference paper about news media companies in the Baltic states. Keep. Uncle G 19:50, 21 August 2006 (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.