Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily India

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. For clarification, here's why I closed it like this:

Keep, claim to notability... — doesn't say that any more, and even so, I don't see a source. WP:V.

Keep. It is used by enwiki as a source... — this was basically withdrawn, as Y refuted it successfully and John noted as such.

Weak Keep, if it's frequently quoted by... — see the first one.

Keep — As John Vandenberg says, it is useful... — refuted, echoing the sentiments of WP:USEFUL.

Comment — I am strongly opposed to the use of "notability" as a justification of deletion of articles... — not up for debate here. That's an argument for WT:N, and at the moment, notability stands sufficiently in the community as a reason to delete an article.

Reply: secondary sources are not all available online in the third world... — indeed, that is correct. However, the article when I closed this debate had no independant source (the only link, pretending to be a reference as a footnote, pointed to "Daily India (official site)").

So, all in all, applying the foundation principle of Wikipedia and its' supplement when compared to the above refutals, the consensus here stands at delete. Daniel Bryant 10:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily India

Daily India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN newspaper, lack of multiple non-trivial sources about this paper. Prod was removed by creator, who is transfixed with Guantanamo. -- Y not? 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, claim to notability made on website of paper. "Frequently quoted in the Hindu and the Times of India", which are two of India's largest papers. Hornplease 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is used by enwiki as a source, so it is in our readers interest to inform them about the source. John Vandenberg 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's crazy. They syndicate UPI stories. So can anyone. -- Y not? 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • From my quick investigation, I now see what crazyness you mean. It syndicates from UPI, Asian News International and IANS, and has very little original content. I still think it is useful to have an article, as it is being used as the URL of citations. It's not listed in the Alexa top 100 for India, so I am finding myself without a leg to stand on here. John Vandenberg 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if it's frequently quoted by India's largest newspapers, which have a large potential readership, then it's likely to be notable. However, the article will need more improvements in its content. It's just too stubby.--Kylohk 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, per WP:CORP. The only single reference goes to primary source. The article can pass the notability criteria when there is an independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary source. — Indon (reply) — 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And you believe that one cant be found for this newspaper? John Vandenberg 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me then the secondary sources, then I will change my vote. — Indon (reply) — 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disclaimer — I started this article. And I would like to suggest to the nominator that characterizing someone as being "transfixed" is an insulting phrase they should avoid using in future. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — As John Vandenberg says, it is useful to have articles on the publications we use as references. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. A classic example of WP:USEFUL. Read again WP:V and WP:RS please. Wiki articles cannot be used as sources. All wiki articles must have reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I am strongly opposed to the use of "notability" as a justification of deletion of articles. In my experience the judgement that material is not "notable" is highly vulnerable to hidden systemic bias. It is far better to rely on wp:npov, wp:nor and wp:rs, which are official policies, and less vulnerable to hidden systemic bias, than to rely on notability, which is not an official policy. Geo Swan 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Why not? Have you read WP:CORP ? It's one of the official WP guidelines. — Indon (reply) — 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Reply: secondary sources are not all available online in the third world. Please read WP:BIAS before commenting further. Hornplease 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Being used by enwiki as a source is not good enough of a reason, as they syndicate UPI stories. If it's frequently quoted by India's largest newspapers, I'd like to see sources (other than it's own website). A quick search on The Hindu website doesn't tell me that it's frequently quoted by the newspaper.[1][2][3][4]. Same goes for The Times of India[5][6] [7][8](second query returns some ten results, but none are related to Daily India). As of now, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. If any secondary, reliable sources are provided for claims of notability, I'll change my vote. utcursch | talk 17:38, 7 May 2007 (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.