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. The article is now supported by more than one reliable source, which appears to have been the main concern for the delete !voters. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fake news websites[edit]

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

I'm not sure this list is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It might be, but I'd like to see what other folks opinions are. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure why the opinion of Melissa Zimdars (who is she by the way?) warrants its own article; this article will always be based on one source alone and therefore fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA. "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This one isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to fake news website. None on the list are independently notable on their own by themselves for their own standalone article. And together as a list they haven't yet received independent analysis or meta analysis from enough separate secondary sources to merit inclusion on this particular page. Best to just continue discussing them and their impact in paragraph format instead. Sagecandor (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ (see below for update) back to fake news website for now - There sure are a lot of sources talking about fake news, including lists and references to lists. I don't know why the lead of this page was changed to be specific to one list. Since that is the case, I'd probably lean towards WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation later with a more sensible inclusion criteria. But a glance at the list it draws from shows that there are actually plenty that are independently notable (not that that's a significant factor). Since it's a developing concept, perhaps the best thing is to redirect (there's nothing to merge) back to fake news website and reassess in a couple weeks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Changed to "Redirect" back to fake news website, agree with Rhododendrites well thought out comment. Sagecandor (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect per above, or merge, if the closing sysop prefers to save some material. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to fake news website per above. Evking22 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect to fake news website per above. Senthen.2 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important adjunct to fake news website. These are examples of fake news sites, otherwise it becomes an article without a subject matter. It might help to have an explanation however for each site - "fake because" which then can link to the page on their website that says that it is fake. The page is also useful for readers who want to check to see if a website they are reading is fake. It's similar to the list of satirical news websites. Criteria of inclusion need to be worked on. But if a site is listed as a fake news sites in a reliable secondary source then I think that is good enough reason to include in the list. The ones already there are included because they were listed as fake by Melissa Zimdars, a media professor at Merrimack College. Is that not a reasonable reliable secondary source? We need work on what counts as reliable secondary sources here. Expand and refine rather than delete. Also, whatever the selection criteria are, I do think we should have a list of fake news sites somewhere on wikipedia, for the same reason that we have a list of satirical news sites. The topic is highly notable. Indeed, I'm not sure why there is an AfD for this page - perhaps those here who say Delete or Merge (much the same effect) could elaborate and explain why you think it should be deleted or redirected according to wikipedia guidelines? Robert Walker (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changed stance due to entry above. Evking22 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with other sources, no need to just use those listed by one source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those sites are notable and there are any number of others yet to be found which would have just as much claim for inclusion. Redirect would not be appropriate since there is not (and should not be) such a list in the article. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its just like List of satirical news websites Victor Grigas (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. All the sites in the article you mentioned are notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After some thought, changing my sentiment on this one. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've struck my redirect !vote above and am switching to keep. Others added a few sources so as not to be based solely on Zimdars's list, so with WP:TNT no longer necessary, I changed the lead to no longer list where they came from (that's for the sources to do, after all). I also removed the table, the inappropriate external links, added/removed some wikilinks, added some sources, and pulled some content from separate articles that have been written. We now have a list based on several reliable sources like Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, All Things Considered, Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Reports, and there are a ton more to draw from. Still needs improvement, but it's moved to a keep for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Robertinventor's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2016 (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.