Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Channel Study

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. Delete arguments fail to advance their position beyond WP:TOOLITTLE. Twice relisted. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Channel Study

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

Very minimal content Hz.tiang (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy G11 that was placed; perhaps it is the #1 education website and sources can be found for that. if it they can be, it might be notable. There's 7 days for someone to findthem. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is, as claimed, the leading Indian educational website in terms of Alexa rankings. Getting much in the way of Internet sources presents the usual problem that educational material, on the Internet, has very limited availability in English in India. Therefore, we must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem seems to be with lack of editor attention to the article, not the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Minimal content is not a reason to delete. MarioNovi (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2013 (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.