Talk:The Brussels Journal

message: The Brussels Journal is a blog featuring prominent researchers and bloggers and which serves as one of the only conservative news media in belgium.  It not only reports on the news, but makes them, and therefore it is important to have all pertinent information on this blog on Wikipedia. Misheu 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting these claims. 83.233.154.50 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need me to prove to you that the Brussels Journal is used as a news source on Wikipedia? It's usually a good idea to see "what links to here" before suggesting a speedy delete.  I now did a quick search and wikified a few more links. Misheu 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, this is an article about a website and blog who reports on politics of Belgium and the EU.  Its readership is large, and it's contributers are internationally known and qualified in their field.  The Belgian government has tried a number of times to obstruct further publication of the weblog.  It is a topic of dispute in Belgian politics in its own right, because it is one of the very few news sources that offers independant news (and is not directly or indirectly government controlled).  It should be kept. Stijn Calle 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's not notable, I'm saying there needs to be multiple non-trivial second hand sources asserting the article's notability (see Wikipedia:Notability), if it's to be kept, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Instead of acting insulted, you could try and provide such, and thereby vastly improve the article. 83.233.154.50 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the fact that Wikipedia uses this blog "as a news source" means absolutely nothing in terms of notability, Wikipedia itself can never be considered a reliable source, see WP:RS. 83.233.154.50 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the fact that Wikipedia uses it as a new source means it is of interest to wikipedia users ot know more about what they're reading.  You want to bring this issue up to a vote? Misheu 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of threatening to take it to a vote, how about you do something constructive and improve the article with actual sources, as required by Wikipedia guidelines? Mackan 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threatening? I thought this was Wikipedia policy. How about instead of threatening to delete you actually do what Wikipedia requires: read the article and see what links to it.  For some reason you're getting insulted, but you could have easily wrote something on the "talk" page instead of putting an "express delete" notice.  You call that being civil and constructive? Misheu 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe bring some references?  It would prevent future deletion attempts. Misheu 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the big difference in saying "the blog was set up to be an alternative" (who said?) and "the blog is independent".  Why do you think one is more fawning than the other?  In general this article brings quotes, while the Dutch version doesn't.  For that matter, the Dutch version doesn't bring references either.  I suggest if you feel this is too one sided, edit it. As for Belien's own opinion of his blog, I think it says something about the blog's aims, and is not used to "defend itself".  It might be better, though, if this part is kept, to put it under its own headings, such as "blog goals".  Something else which should be added is the connection to Vlaams Belang. Misheu 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

message: According to WP:SELFPUB, the article may not be "based primarily on such [self-published] sources."
However, in this article, 22 out of 33 sources are from [www.brusselsjournal.com]. This has to change, and the content must come from third-party reliable sources.VR talk 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well nobody is stopping you or anybody from researching and finding more external articles. Songofsirens (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BURDEN, the editor who wishes the material to stay must find reliable sources.VR talk 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A tag will ensure that others may find sources rather than plain removal of content. Afterall, this is not a BLP which wouldn't allow unsourced information. I am concerned why you are removing rather than resorting to tagging allowing time. Songofsirens (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SELFPUB