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. It seems like we have a consensus that the topic is notable, irrespective of the quality of either the article on the topic or of the topic itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpIndia[edit]

OpIndia (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)

Website fails WP:GNG. Website has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable and secondary sources.Only Business standard and Economic Times' articles mention few details along with other 'fact-checking' websites which are not enough to pass GNG.

Newslaundry is questionable source according to RSN archives due to shabby journalism and editorial practices.

Alt News and Boom live hardly qualify for establishing notability purpose as they are fact-checking websites. If they are going to establish notability then there are chances that every fake news peddler on social media or such shabby websites will have their Wikipedia pages.

My whole point is: website is not notable yet. It has not received significant coverage in multiple independent and secondary reliable sources which can be used for creating Wikipedia article.

Hence, this discussion. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Busting fake news: Who funds whom?" from the Business Standard
  2. "Tables Turn on Twitter's Hindutva Warriors, and It's the BJP Doing the Strong-Arming" from The Wire
  3. "Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia’s harrowing world" from Newslaundry

     There was no consensus in the noticeboard discussion at "Newslaundry on OpIndia".

  4. "Can fact-checking emerge as big and viable business?" from The Economic Times

• Keep per Newslinger. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This passes even my notoriously high bar for notability. It seems as if this nomination is motivated more by dislike of what RS say about the subject, which really isn't our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 08:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, are you using appeal to motive as your argument at AfD? Where did I mention anything about bad things about publication or like that? Your argument can be categorised as personal attack and violation of our WP:Civility policy. -- Brihaspati (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, my reason for keeping is as stated. As a secondary issue, I am not convinced this nomination is in good faith, again, as stated. Guy (help!) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A new media outlet that has a tense relationship with Wikipedia in the last month or so and has made allegations against WP at the way it works. ItOpIndia has enough of a presence an article is reasonable, the precise content of which may be a pain to manage, but thats another problem. And OpIndia likely non-RS from a WP viewpoint but it is well capable of making actions that might evoke Jimmy Wales to tweet. In general from once a media outlet has has some impact or exposure I want keep it on WP, I want to know something about it. I am the opinion the nomination may have been in good faith but I have many concerns it was misguided.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC) If I was being nice to the nom. I would suggest they considers withdrawal through Wikipedia:Speedy keep; but the nom. may of course choose to let this run and I am just as happy if they do so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject does not seem to be credible, but it is notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion of the page about opindia from Wikipedia is necessary. Opindia may be a centre right idiology base but they don't spread fake news, infact they show the truth about others media channels like the wire , the print. — Therightpen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  Not liking the contents of an article is not a sufficient reason to delete it. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This looks like a deliberate attempt to damage Opindia's reputation after they exposed nefarious activities of few English Wikipedia editors. First they were put in spam list, later their [was questioned] and now their page . Has this encyclopedia become a place to settle personal scores? Please keep your biases away before editing the encyclopedia Quartzd (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is varifying Facts which involves some political party, Unethical practice? The Fact chcek authority dismissed their application on these grounds. But, I havent seen any report where they were found spreading Fake News. on the other hand, Ive seen few fake news/content busted by this portal. With the coverage it has received in recent past, I think the page should stay. Santoshdts (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly DELETE: The entire article on the news portal is a whitewashed version with prominent bias against the news portal or its editor(s). The article here has the POVs of those against it being pushed to deliberately portray the news portal in bad light highlighting a few of its editorial errors that every media house or portal has furthered at some point of time or other. News articles from portals like Alt News, Boom, Newslaundry etc. have been used here which themselves have been questioned for own biases in the past & shoddy practices of journalism. While each of these portals and several others are painted as credible' without writing about their political biases, fake news controversies, fakery propagating tweets by their journalists etc. all that has been ignored completely while axes are being ground against only at this portal. Either a consensus should be reached to revert the bias on this page or this article that feeds misinformation into the minds of those reading this should better be deleted. There have been numerous attempts by many an admin here to reach consensus but nothing seems to achieve a neutral version of this article. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Djm-leighpark. Even if the ideology of the website is RW. Wikipedia is not property of anyone. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 00:58, 1 April 2020 (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.