Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G 57

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G 57

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

Not notable, no reliable sources cited, only 1 GNews hits, no GBooks hits, not able to tell on GHits due to search terms and social media. Declined PROD without significant improvement to article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nominator misrepresents the state of this article, frankly. While there are no inline refs, the two of the three external links seem to be reliable sources indicating notability for this group. (The third, BBC, does not refer to the group of signatories as a single entity.) And given the apparent prominence of this group within Nigeria, I'd say WP:NGO applies, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quite unremarkable group, the sources show only passing mentions, not enough for notability Seasider91 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not passing mentions. The group is a primary focus of the two African news stories, and appears in both the headline and the lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, I'm shocked. First, AllAfrica is not a newspaper or publisher, it is a reposter of other articles. In this case, there is a headline about G-53 and a blurb, the rest is behind a paywall. The article is originally from ThisDay, but is not longer obtainable through them. The entire article from ThisDay is available through Lexis, but does not support a link to G57 without either another citation showing that G53 became G57 unless one synthesizes information that was not in the article. AllAfrica is noted in WP:RSN as being useful only as a convenience link, not as a reliable source in and of itself. The original publisher, ThisDay, has nothing that indicates its editorial policies and does not appear on the reliable sources noticeboard. As far as I can tell, it is not a reliable source, particularly given the OpEd pieces supporting the Goodluck Jonathan faction.

The next reference is Vanguard (vanguardngr.com) which also does not indicate its editorial policies, nor does it appear on RSN. It may or may not be reliable.

Finally, the BBC ref does not refer to either "G53" or "G57" - and the sidebar article speaks of the Nigerian media rumor mill and the unreliability of conventional Nigerian media for fact-checking. The sidebar, Lies, politics and Nigeria's great rumour mill clearly puts doubt on the reliability of the information in the first two refs, in addition to the facts that I pointed out. Perhaps I should have spelled out my entire reasoning in the nom, but in my time on Wikipedia, I have been used to answering questions about where I was coming from and not dealing with one who apparently does not understand the principle of assuming good faith. Hopefully this will change. GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, why should we regard a failure to find online indications of "editorial policies" as a reason to disregard sources? When WP:NEWSORG states "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies." Second, the absence of a news org on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -- which is a discussion, not an all inclusive list -- does not mean that it can't be RS, surely. Third, yes, I think you have been too cursory on some of your deletion rationales, and you're going to have to explain things a little better -- at least imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a source of impeccable reliability such as BBC go to the point of publishing an article on the lack of fact-checking and adherence to the truth by conventional Nigerian media, stating:

"The mill in Nigeria is so powerful that it has permeated the conventional media. Many newspapers and magazines publish products of the rumour mill as authentic news." Lies, politics and Nigeria's great rumour mill

When you have this type of information, from such a legitimate source, if you are to truly interested in due diligence, then you look for editorial policies - to refute the claim that the source is not reliable by another source. The absence of the source from RSN does not mean that it is not a RS - like you stated it is a discussion board. It does mean that you cannot assume that it is a reliable source in the face of evidence to the contrary.

As to my deletion rationales, thankfully the community does not agree with you. 80% of the time, my AfD noms are deleted. The percentage is higher when you consider merges and redirects. Of this month's CSD noms, 87% were deleted and 13% went to AfD - and those at AfD are currently looking at either deletion or merge. So I don't think that I need to explain anything, least of all to someone that doesn't have the courtesy to ask nicely. GregJackP Boomer! 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting article. But it can't be used as a 'guilty until proven innocent' argument against all Nigerian media, as you seem to want to do. Plus, the BBC piece seems to suggest that a lot of rumour mongering aids Nigerian establishment interests: this is the opposite. Until demonstrated that these Nigerian news sources are not RS, I'll continue to hold that they are, and point out that there is no proof, just suspicion. US media has its share of critics, too. One of the great opportunities here is to get more content from Africa and the rest of the developing world into Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory Google search for "G 57 Nigeria" offers a number of news stories about continued national level advocacy by this group as the primary subject of articles, enough to meet WP:NGO. Over the next couple days I'll write text to include based on found sources to introduce to the article. English language Wikipedia based on its contributions is in a de facto state of being Euro-America centric, but by including articles like this on national groups active in African politics we can broaden the geographic scope of Wikipedia's coverage. It is important to avoid approaching articles on the politics of other nation-states with a colonial mindset. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination was not done by GregJackP in good faith as it is clearly an attempt to win an argument He started when he nominated the article on Reno Omokri for deletion. Seeing his arguments there demolished by objective wikipedians he has extended his vendetta to this article that has existed for 2 years without being disturbed because it was referenced in the article on Mr. Omokri. I urge others to go to the article for deletion discussion on Mr. Omokri to see where this is coming from. There's nothing wrong with this article and GregJackP has to come to terms with the fact that his opinion are not facts. Etauso (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article fullfills WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:NGO (an additional online search will reveal several more reliable sources). The nominating editor is kindly advised to please respect Wikipdia's Content Guideline on News Organizations. Repeatedly discrediting national daily newspapers, calling their websites "not reliable", is a direct violation of WP:NEWSORG. If the nominating editor continues to discredit Nigerian daily newspapers, he will be reported to the Administrators board. Amsaim (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So report me. If you look directly below WP:RS#NEWSORG you find WP:RS#Questionable sources which states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts...." I've cited a source that shows this for the papers in question. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The BBC News article in question is part of BBC's "African Viewpoint", and as the name implies does not represent the viewpoint of BBC News. The source you mention is merely the private opinion of a retired Nigerian freelance journalist. You are using this BBC News article to discredit the entire Nigerian newspaper industry, concluding that Nigerian daily newspapers are not reliable sources in Wikipedia, and all this based upon 1 BBC News article which merely reports the private viewpoint of a retired freelance journalist. Apart from this, the BBC article does not refute the existence of the G 57 Transparency Group. What you should have done is to balance the G-57 Wikipedia article by introducting a separate section into the article addressing the rumours using the BBC article as a reference, instead of sending the article into Afd and discrediting the entire Nigerian daily newspaper industry. Again, I'm kindly asking you to please stop discrediting Nigerian newspapers in Afd discussions. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Amsaim for standing up to GregJackP's overbearing behaviour. I would also suggest that a similar warning be issued on the article on Reno Omokri for which user GregJackP has raised, without just cause, repeated objections and nominated for both deletion and NPOV all in a bid to win an argument that disparages African newspapers and news sources. Etauso (talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 September 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.