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.

project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 14 February 2018 by reviewer TeaDrinker (talk · contribs).

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

	Journalism

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. MickeyHuff (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ([1])

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

One editor added four local news stories and two op-eds by state propaganda websites. Still not notable.

talk) 11:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weren't the early years before the 1993 paperbacks, done as binders or something back to 1975?

And wasn't there a book that reprinted all the old articles? 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:4FA:FDFB:3A7F:C867 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]