Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aajkaal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Aajkaal
Non notable local newspaper. Although google search shows several ghits, maximum are blogs, forums etc. No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. I would like to propose, though, that all newspapers be regarded as automatically notable, in the same way that cities and towns are. Reliable sources generally exist, but are often hidden behind a paywall or are only available in printed form and at a limited number of libraries. In this case, I expect that additional references are available in Bengali-language media. --Eastmain (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. Its the third most widely circulated Bengali Newspaper in India. I will update this article with suitable references by tomorrow. And I support Eastmain's view about notability of a newspaper. Shovon (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is verifiable. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- strong keep. It's a leading newspaper in one of the ten most widely spoken languages in the world. How on earth is this non-notable? Interlingua 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But your claims are unsourced unverifiable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article right now has unsourced claims, but that's a reason to place a citation needed tag inside NOT to delete it. There's a difference between unverified and unverifiable. This article certainly makes verifiable (or refutable, falsifiable) claims. What's needed here is the improvement of the article, not extremist delitionism. Interlingua 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. I have made good faith search for references, but not found. Article having unverifiable claim is a reason for deletion, the people want to keep this article should take the burden of finding references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the sourced claims are sufficient to establish notability even if the unsourced claims are removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. I have made good faith search for references, but not found. Article having unverifiable claim is a reason for deletion, the people want to keep this article should take the burden of finding references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article right now has unsourced claims, but that's a reason to place a citation needed tag inside NOT to delete it. There's a difference between unverified and unverifiable. This article certainly makes verifiable (or refutable, falsifiable) claims. What's needed here is the improvement of the article, not extremist delitionism. Interlingua 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It is not a mere local newspaper. It is a widely circulated Bengali newspaper in Calcutta as well as West Bengal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Do you have reliable sources to support your claim? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article already cites a survey which puts the newspaper's readership at 33 lakh [1]. That's 3,300,000. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But it does not support the claim "leading Bengali newspapers in Kolkata". It depends on local population if the readership is really high while considering the local population? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article already cites a survey which puts the newspaper's readership at 33 lakh [1]. That's 3,300,000. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The source claims readership of 3.3 million. Discounting readership down, that would at least put circulation in the hundreds of thousands. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Metropolitan90. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whats the concern? Isn't this a major paper? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it were only a local newspaper it would be notable as it is from Calcutta. Due to this, it has a readership of sever million, and IMO a newpaper needs a readership of only in the thousands. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
