377:
that we know that Reach is an agency as well as a website this does make it much more likely to be notable. If the article is kept I think we would want to use those sources as the basis for a more-or-less complete rewrite and rename the article to match the correct name. (I was taking it on trust that the article was correctly named which is why I wasn't finding stuff when I searched for sources and why I assumed it would be easier than it is.) As it stands the article is pretty much a puff piece but now we have some better sources it may be rescuable after all. --
253:
initiative I'd say it is fairly typical. The fact that it may be presented differently and use social media makes it notable in itself. There is a big problem in applying notability criteria to government and large organisations when most of what is produced concerning them is generated by them and therefore a primary source, but it must be well known in
Singapore and it has been going for five years. The Government of Singapore, by the way, has a reputation of being a well run and progressive outfit, so it isn't surprising to see them doing something different. --
376:
Those two media links are both helpful for demonstrating some notability and providing verifiability. It is now possible to be clearer about what the site actually is and what the organisation is behind it. This is something that the article, and the site itself, does not explain clearly at all. Now
185:
No evidence of notability. Referenced only to primary sources. Promotional tone. Is it really a government department/division? It certainly doesn't look like it from the website. It looks like a website that promotes some
Government programmes. Is every individual website that a government produces
275:
government information portal then I would accept that this makes it automatically notable (for any government in the world) but it was certainly not obvious to me that this is that. Lots of governments make lots of overlapping portalish websites that repeat and reblog government information. This
252:
Notable as important national government interface with its population. The nominator asks whether this is really an arm of government? With the three top stories when I looked on the website the results of the pre-budget consultation, the official inflation statistics and a crime prevention
321:"The www.gov.sg Portal is the official electronic communication platform of the Singapore Government. This portal, together with three other portals - Citizens & Residents, Business and Non-Residents - collectively make up the Singapore Government Online (SGOL) presence."
337:
I'm not sure whether we are arguing here about whether the website is what it claims to be or whether it is notable in the sense that people will have heard of it, since they overlap. The stated purpose is set out
154:
271:
We are certainly not here to argue the merits of any particular government and I am surprised to see it raised as an issue. Lets leave that aside and look at your points. If this really is the
148:
115:
203:
295:
here? Singapore is an
English speaking country. It shouldn't be hard to find the references required, if they exist, but I am finding almost nothing when I look. --
226:
399:
Nobody else has chimed in in favour of deletion and the above exchange has weakened my belief that deletion is necessary. Accordingly I think it best if
342:. Accessing press coverage is difficult because the Straits Times does not appear to be searchable directly, but these two articles are pertinent -
291:
be possible to prove it. Where are the newspaper references from a few years back saying "Government unveils brand new web portal". Where is the
347:
350:. I didn't look for others. I am not in favout of including websites in general, but this does seem to me different from the usual. --
88:
83:
279:
I strongly disagree that there is any intrinsic problem proving notability. If this really is the main government web portal then it
92:
75:
17:
169:
136:
343:
427:
36:
130:
426:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
412:
386:
359:
332:
304:
262:
241:
218:
195:
126:
57:
408:
382:
328:
300:
237:
214:
191:
53:
176:
355:
258:
162:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
404:
378:
324:
296:
233:
210:
187:
142:
49:
351:
254:
186:
notable? Probably not. Is this one? Not that I can see. Google has next to nothing on it.
276:
looks like it could be one of those and I see nothing to prove otherwise in the article.
71:
63:
339:
109:
403:
so we can instead try to clean up the article according to the sources found. --
292:
323:. It doesn't get much clearer than that. And it doesn't even mention Reach. --
287:
be well known in
Singapore" (my emphasis). If that really is so then it
420:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
319:
is actually the main
Singapore government web portal. It says
105:
101:
97:
283:
have been covered in the
Singapore media. You say it "
161:
316:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
430:). No further edits should be made to this page.
204:list of Singapore-related deletion discussions
227:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
175:
8:
225:Note: This debate has been included in the
202:Note: This debate has been included in the
224:
201:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
315:I am now pretty certain that
447:
413:19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
387:23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
360:22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
333:20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
305:20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
263:20:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
242:20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
219:20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
196:19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
423:Please do not modify it.
401:I abandon the nomination
32:Please do not modify it.
58:23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
46:nomination withdrawn
44:The result was
244:
230:
221:
207:
438:
425:
231:
208:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
446:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:deletion review
421:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
444:
442:
433:
432:
416:
415:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
340:on the website
310:
309:
308:
307:
277:
266:
265:
246:
245:
222:
183:
182:
119:
72:REACHSingapore
66:
64:REACHSingapore
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
443:
431:
429:
424:
418:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
388:
384:
380:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:from Jan 2009
341:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:verifiability
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
251:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
228:
223:
220:
216:
212:
205:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
422:
419:
400:
320:
288:
284:
280:
272:
249:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
405:DanielRigal
379:DanielRigal
325:DanielRigal
297:DanielRigal
234:DanielRigal
211:DanielRigal
188:DanielRigal
149:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
352:AJHingston
317:www.gov.sg
255:AJHingston
348:Oct 2010
116:View log
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
127:Google
93:delete
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
409:talk
383:talk
356:talk
346:and
329:talk
301:talk
289:must
285:must
281:will
273:main
259:talk
250:Keep
238:talk
215:talk
192:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
177:TWL
114:– (
411:)
385:)
358:)
331:)
303:)
261:)
240:)
229:.
217:)
206:.
194:)
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
407:(
381:(
354:(
327:(
299:(
257:(
236:(
232:—
213:(
209:—
190:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.