User talk:Saqib/Sources

Let's kick things off

@S0091: Please feel free to add Pakistani sources—we'll put together a guide and then bring it to RSN at some point for assessment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you started it because I have done analysis on some sources for AfD and other discussions and don't want to loose it. However, we cannot bring a whole source assessment table to RSN because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no source that is entirely unreliable even if deprecated like WP:DAILYMAIL. Likewise, there is no sources that is entirely reliable even BBC, NYT, etc. RSN is built to assess a single source based on the context it is being used. Only after a couple significant discussions, if not a full blown RfC, does a source meet RSP listing criteria. Not that I think anything listed here needs to meet RSP criteria but it needs discussion by several editors somewhere. I think what what we can do is pull together analysis and if a source is being used across several articles we can take that source to RSN to get input, then link that discussion here. For others that might not be enough for RSN, then a discussion at WP:WikiProject Pakistan or some other relevant project which can be linked. Is your intent to merge this back into WikiProject Pakistan? S0091 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Noted Let's start by listing out the Pakistani sources that editors usually toss into our articles. Then, we can give each one a quick once-over, like I did with PAK Magazine (self-published) and FHM Pakistan (fake-ref). As for this guide, I'm really not sure what to make of it yet, but at-least if it helps anyone wrap their head around Pakistani sources, it might be worth something. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I made some updates to the table using some of the RSP attributes that I thought make sense. What do you think? S0091 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Looks good! Thanks! I've added in a few internet business news sites. They're usually not reliable for BLPs, but everyone seems to cite them anyway. So, which assessment symbol should we slap on these kinds of sites? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do mean by 'internet business'? For the symbols, I was going by WP:RSP#Legend but there may be ones that are more suitable. S0091 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, By internet businesses, I mean websites that claim or appear to be news websites but they're not, since they don't have journalists but rather just writers and content farms. Their content is often low-quality, sensationalized and lack journalistic standards. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we use "Content Farm" for the Reason. That is also what Fuchsia is which I just added. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You're welcome to edit this. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is not "like" NEWSORGINDIA. It is NEWSORGINDIA. That guideline would apply to the entire subcontinent region in my opinion since media organizations do not stop at a particular border. Hope that makes sense. I think the title "NEWSORGINDIA" should be changed actually, given the contention and confusion by some editors in AfD discussions. Will have a look at the references a little later. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Absolutely right. NEWSORGINDIA title definitely needs to changed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @CNMall41. In the discussion/RfC that led to WP:NEWSORGINDIA editors specifically stated it could be expanded. The other issue is many of the sources being used are not reliable so they are not like TOI and others that are news orgs and mix news with paid content. Some sources are worthless and should not be used period.. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to find more is Fiverr. Go there and you will find many of these publications for sale. Pay a small fee and publish anything you want. And yes, this includes some reliable publications unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BOL Network

This website is owned by a notorious Pakistani TV network called BOL News, which isn't exactly known for its trustworthiness or respectability. One reason is that the channel's owner Axact was involved in running a big diploma mill and this network was set up as a front business. It seems like this website and its affiliated sites such as bolnews.com are now operating as content farms. I stumbled upon some coverage such as Laura Jarrett, Jennifer Adamson, Sarah Netburn, Tony Balkissoon, Katelyn Mabus, Amanda Eller, Alberto Musalem, Jonathan Higginbotham which suggesting that they're producing content that could potentially be used for establishing WP:GNG for non-notable figures. Their coverage on Natalie Harp even states Despite her prominence, Harp has yet to be featured on a Wikipedia page. How should we categorize such a website? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, Bol News was churning out a lot of paid placements for figures like Waqar Zaka whose BLP was recently deleted due to a lack of WP:N. And numerous UPEs often also citing Bol News coverage to support the claims of notability on articles related to Pakistani actors and TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the articles you linked to are tagged with "Blog" at the top (ex. "Blog > Who is Tony Balkissoon? Laura Jarrett’s Politician Spouse Revealed) so not RS. S0091 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, OK but how should we categorize or classify such a website in our table? Similar type of coverage can also be found on Bol News website such as Kim Gravel, Jared Carrabis, Lawrence Zarian, Cherryn Krol, Ella Langley, Dario Gil, Gian Luca Passi De Preposulo. It seems that none of these have a WP BLP yet, and I strongly feel this coverage is aimed at getting one for them. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Jared Carrabis did have page but it was prodded back in 2018, then a draft was created in in April this year (assuming it's the same person) but I am not finding anything for some of the others. I also check Wikidata and nothing there unless they exist in other languages with titles in those languages rather than English. Might be worth asking Seraphimblade to check the deleted Carrabis draft to see if it used BOL as a source. It might also be worth posting a note at RSN just to make folks aware and get it documented and maybe also NPP and AfC. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 437#BOL News which was recently archived but you could resurrect it or create a new one and ping those who participated. As far as how to classify it, based on you what you presented I would classify as WP:GUNREL with reason WP:BLOG, WP:FAKEREF and WP:CIRC. Note your findings in the comments (a couple blog examples and a couple Wikipedia ones). To me even if someone tried to use one of the articles citing Wikipedia, it is either WP:FAKEREF because an article does not exist, or if one does it is WP:CIRC. Make sense? S0091 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOL News. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Last month, you deleted Draft:Jared Carrabis. Could you please check for us if this source was used? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not used in the deleted draft. That would, of course, not be an appropriate or reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]