Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veekshanam

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 delete. The "keep" side offers no reliable sources about this newspaper. Sandstein 14:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veekshanam[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only source is an official government registration page. Waggie (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a circulation of over a million per Mass Media in India and Social impact of mass media in Kerala. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the circulation of a paper confers notability per GNG or NCORP. Could you link to these references? Perhaps there is comprehensive coverage available there that could be useful? Waggie (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use Google Books as well or just stick the book names in the general search box? This is the most lazy approach to referencing I have ever seen! gidonb (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. From my search Veekshanam easily meets WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG per WP:RS and WP:NEXIST. Also, nom's focus on WP:NCORP (here and elsewhere) in the intro and subsequent comment is misleading as the newspaper is published by a political party. Corporations publishing just one newspaper may carry the same name but are almost never notable corporations. Large newspapers typically are. This one is no rare exception. Nomination is a clear waste of community time and should be closed as snow keep. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Á*Delete and Redirect to Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee - Mouthpieces of political parties, esp. those with a post-independence establishment are hardly any notable in Indian scape, as to their lack of good unbiased journalism. A few trivial hits, that vouches for the existence of paper and is used to source Congres's views on any particular issue are located.None covers it any significantly .Furthermore, GidonB needs to read WP:AADD (and that he needs to provide those sources, rather than handwave) and Davidson needs to gauge that GNG does not equate to trivial directory listings/name mentions across RS(s). ∯WBG^converse 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per WBG. Deb (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Winged Blades of Godric. WP:NCORP is a valid N criteria as it applies similarly to WP:NORG. Being published by a political party (or mouthpiece as WBG put it) is utterly meaningless in terms of notability. If the DNC or RNC published x paper, it doesn't make it notable just because it came from a notable political party. I'd also advise the editor who said that Waggie's approach to sourcing was "lazy" to read WP:ONUS. And in the immortal words of 12 year old 4channers everywhere "pics or it didn't happen" (or in this case, "sources or it's unsupported"). Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2018 (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.