Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big News Network

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big News Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fake news mill per EU DisinfoLab. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard. Aronitz (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep- This needs to be re-written but it is well sourced with reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko ^talk 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on the contrary this article can be rewritten, the sources provided prove it is notable, G11 States: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Either moved to draft or delete for now. B-Factor (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article both the nomination and the unhelpful "Delete per nom" opinions come from editors with low edit counts so I'd like to see more opinions from more experienced editors, especially regarding the claim that this is a fake news mill.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that even if it is indeed fake news mill (which is not at all clear: here BNN states We have provided evidence that disproves the allegations and wish to reiterate that we have no involvement in the subject matter of your previous report, which appears to be the focus of your new report.), it doesn't automatically make it unworthy of a dedicated article on Wikipedia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it operates a number of fake news websites. BBC News: ANI's news reports have found space in many mainstream Indian news outlets and publishers. Its content was further reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries, the researchers found. Websites identified by the report as fake media outlets include those owned by Big News Network, which describes itself as a "leading provider of news headlines with over 400 distinct categories of latest news".

I quoted WP:NCORP as the guideline that this private news agency clearly fails. Would you mind sharing in-depth non-routine references that meets WP:CORPDEPTH standard? All I could find are brief quotes in media quoting EU DisinfoLab's report(s). In its current form, the article is being used to give credibility to a list of fake news this agency operates. Aronitz (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What does being fake news have to do with notability? We have articles about everything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just pointed out a fact. We shouldn't give credibility/SEO value to a list of fake news websites this agency operates, especially when there is hardly any in-depth coverage about this company. Aronitz (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I dithered on this because of the EU Disinfo lab report(s) but they also do not provide sufficient detailed information about this company. It seems very unsual to me that there are a distinct lack of third parties writing about a news company of this size. HighKing 18:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Uhai (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2023 (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.