Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pavlovic Today

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 -- text has been added to Ksenija Pavlovic and redirect created. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pavlovic Today[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale, or improvement. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Lot of hits on News, but all from this site itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG on external sources. I thought about nominating this one before.South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Pavlovic Today is a young and reputable publication and is in the White House Press Corps. Deutsche Welle is mentioning the publication and is enough of an extrenal in-depth source. The publication is listed on google news. Call for deletion seems like a suppression of free and independent media, the article can be expanded and improved, but its deletion is pure censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough for something to pass the general notability guidelines, and that is all we have at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ksenija Pavlovic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ksenija Pavlovic in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2017 (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.