Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EURACTIV

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EURACTIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Importance of this organization is unclear and doesn't seem to be substantiated by reliable sources per WP:NWEB or other relevant notable guideline. The only really strong independent source in the article (niemanlab.org) suggests that they basically translate news from other outlets, this is not clearly what a Wikipedia article is for, vice a notable newspaper or online publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep EURACTIV is a vital independent news source for the European Union supported by major publications throughout Europe. ScotKreek (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we know they say they are vital and stuff, but are they? Who says so? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note By the sheer volume of its partnership with other MSM's and its own original content, I'm sure everyone here can excuse my thinking that this proposed deletion was some kind of joke--after all, even the most minimal of research shows who they are. (EURACTIV.com with AFP and Reuters)[1] (By Sam Morgan | EURACTIV.com)[2] (By Samuel White | EURACTIV.com)[3] (and here's a ton more too)[4] Thanks, and no offense meant either. ScotKreek (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, sorry. What you"ve given there are a bunch of stories published by Euractiv. By definition they are not independent RSes, which is exact what the article is lacking. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my searches I've found EURACTIV quoted by Forbes, the National Review, PBS, New Scientist, the Telegraph, and CNN, among others. It seems to be viewed as a reliable news source and generator of independent content. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "EURACTIV quoted" isn't what is needed here to demonstrate notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, being covered by other sources is exactly how we determine notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline linked states "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine) but what was offered was not that. What was offered was random reprints with Euractive bylines like Forbes: "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said...". If crediting a news source creates notability, I'm puzzled. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The very first "source" linked there, Forbes, begins its article with "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said." First of all, starting an article with this phrasing, right before explaining why said EURActiv article was wholly inappropriate, really only helps to completely undermine the credibility of the content they are referring to; and given that Forbes is, well, Forbes, I am more inclined to believe their opinion on a source's credibility than that of a one-year-old wiki account with an attitude problem. Forbes then proceeds to call out EURActiv in detail and with examples, for highly inaccurately representing the content of the original UNEP report in question; however, this Forbes article is fairly outdated (2011) so their link to the original UNEP report is broken.
  The second "source" listed, National Review, is extremely brief, wasting no time in highlighting EURActiv's extremely self-contradictory statements, and literally ending the article with a statement about laughing... at EURActiv. They link to two EURActiv articles; in the latter, EURActiv writes, "[this report] will also come as an embarrassment for EU officials who had hailed the results of the 2014 poll for finally reversing a trend of declining voter engagement..." seemingly oblivious to their article not even three full months earlier, to which NR also links to, wherein EURActiv does exactly that embarrassing thing.
  To avoid becoming very TL;DR I will stop here at 2/6 but if needed I can absolutely explain why those other links are equally useless for establishing EURActiv's credibility. Zeebowbop (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We can ignore current state and consider that the site has a large editorial staff and is itself is spoken of in many non-euractiv sources. Looks like it itself meets WP:RS, and WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues do not always require deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. A google search for the phrase "according to (source)" is not coverage directly and detail. Not to mention that WP:GHITS is a canonically bad AfD argument. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saddened that you did not appreciate my efforts to find non-EURACTIV sources speaking about EURACTIV. And please, WP:GHITS is bad to use as a dismissive as well, specially under policies of WP:V and the guideline allowances for suitable sources to describe themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a valid news source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Meaning...? — fortunavelut luna 00:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@fortuna velut luna... it's possible that due to its large editorial staff TonyTheTiger might feel the site meets WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots of editors and lots of content out there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large staff might be persuasive if it were independently verified, and there were a ENWP guideline automatically conferring notability on reliable sources. The first condition certainly has not been met. And there is no such RS=GNG guideline that I am aware of. The nearest is "frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NMEDIA, but that a) is an essay not a guideline and b) applies to periodicals only. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS may be seen as more useful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (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.