Talk:Project Censored
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2018. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
What actions can be taken to delete this page again?
[edit]Absolutely nothing was done to meet any concerns made in the deletion discussion, yet the article has somehow been restored. Not only is there zero (!) independent WP:RS coverage of this organization, but the article was literally authored by the organization itself and the vast majority of the low-quality sources belong to the organization itself. Is there some kind of appeal that can be made? A quick-deletion process? Because it's frankly ludicrous that an article this poorly sourced should stand. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- One editor added four local news stories and two op-eds by state propaganda websites. Still not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, I didn't add the state media propaganda articles to demonstrate facts, only to demonstrate the reach of the organization. We can take that paragraph out if you think it is unreasonable, but as far as notability goes, it is pretty easy to establish. Their lists and work are routinely covered in US national media (as the sentence and references you reverted indicates). If I wasn't on my way to work, I would be happy to add more article-length coverage in national media to their work. We're bordering on Kafka here, if I am supposed to demonstrate the notability of an organization but doing so constitutes synthesis. I'll take another gander at the article in a few hours, but I feel like your objections are pretty thin on the ground. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Valid criticism???
[edit]The 'reception' section contains the following: "Iranian State News has also cited their work on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to criticize U.S. foreign policy.[41]" This seems to imply unreliability on the part of PC because "surely if the bad people (Iran) are using it to criticize our military then PC must be wrong". Very shaky logic. This should probably be removed but I wanted to put it up here first Apeholder (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/14 February 2018
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Start-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors