Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Chowk.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage in WP:RS. Poor Alexa rank. Fails WP:NWEB. Defunct website. Störm  (talk)  19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral: (Due to pressure from nom., admin and closer) *Keep: Per sources on previous AfD Articles for deletion/Chowk.com which our nom. seems to have conveniently ignored. I'm fascinated what happened to the 2nd nomination.  I'll try to work the citations on the article at some point if I get time.  Beyond that point I'll shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you have any WP:RS or are you in habit of commenting keep because you like it. Störm   (talk)  16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is ridicous to present this at AfD without having links to the previous AfD's. I suppose at least there was an indication this is the 3rd discussion ... though it might be the fourth.
 * Articles for deletion/Www.chowk.com (30 May 2005) Result Keep
 * Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (30 August 2012) Result Keep (displayed above)
 * Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (2nd nomination) (17 August 2017) Result Keep (Nom. seems to have withdrawn AfD ??? )
 * Once notable always notable isn't it. Of course sources have now linkrotted from that era.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you can re-nominate if you think article is not upto policies of WP, and somehow survived AfD way back when WP policies were not tough. Störm   (talk)  17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nom. has previously been commented as doing WP:VAGUEWAVE when nominating AfD. Can the nom. please explain the problems with defunct website and enumerate and explain with specific figures what is meant by poor Alexa rank.  Part of the issue with WP:NWEB is that the article fails to explain the historical significance of the site ... my impression is of reading the article is there is a reasonable attempt of the article to set the historical context.  WP:RS seems sated by previous WP:AfDs and would the nom. please explicitly contest the sources presented there.  If nom. does not do this within 48 hours I suggest moving to speedy keep if this is not reasonably attempted by that time.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When the website was active then recorded alexa rank was 5,543,926 in October 2016 which is poor by any standard and it shows that site had a poor following. Now, when the site is defunct, there is nothing on Alexa rank. Störm   (talk)  16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You joined on 29 January 2017, but still we have to explain everything to you like a newbie. Please, familarize yourself with WP policies. Störm   (talk)  16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah now depends on a glass being half full or half empty. If there be 1,500 milllon websites say, and even 200 million active, that rank of 5million puts it in the top 3% does it not.  And poor is a poor word and an emotive word here, it is not necessarily a competition.  And be pleased explaining why you are choosing the 2016 Alexa rank when I presume the site was in the old-age stage of it lifecycle.  On the May 2005 AfD an Alexa rank of 47,000 was mentioned, albeit unsubstantiated.  Be pleased explaining this all to me.  Of course I am hoping you have contacted the people from those previous AfD's now you can called their judgement to question?  I present all the sources on the article and presented by the keepers at previous Afd's for consideration (Excluding any self referencing its own website).  As you will have considered them during your WP:BEFORE you should have considered each individually so it should be simple to present each individually here so you are not simply doing a WP:VAGUEWAVE.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)  I presume you are now accepting satisfaction WP:NWEB as you have not mentioned it.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No source discusses website in-depth which we need per WP:GNG. Störm   (talk)  18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately still a WP:VAGUEWAVE answer. Specifically list here the sources/links you've considered.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary explicitly has a carve-out for AfD discussions: While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. This article needs to demonstrate notability per WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or some other applicable notability guideline. So far this is lacking, however a single participant arguing delete is also not a consensus.
 * courtesy ping to, as raises valid arguments. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) @: Am I the only git idiot enough or maybe with the nous enough to sort through dead links and bring existing sources to this site? I've done the minimum on the article to switch on url-status=dead where necessary. Can you please do a temp-undelete on Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (2nd nomination) for me, it almost certainly contains nothing useful but I'd like to know the page creator anyway. I'll sift through the existing AfD sources over the weekend as no one else can be arsed to do it. There's also a little precedents news sites in tricky areas are sometimes given a little slack by the community. Tough luck at WP:ARBCOM. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the page creator was . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dredging through the AfD's I believe the following sources have been presented at the AfD's
 * In the current article the Chowk and Alexa articles will not count for notability etc and the ZNET citation is of seems only passing. The following citation on the article remains:
 * The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the current article the Chowk and Alexa articles will not count for notability etc and the ZNET citation is of seems only passing. The following citation on the article remains:
 * The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:BEFORE D.1 also expects a google books check. Yet at the top of that list for me there is Transforming Education for Peace edited by Jing Lin et. al. . The whole of chapter 10 is devoted to Chowk.com.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @: I observe little discussion in the over 48/72 hours since I have explicitly presented the sources that should have been considered per WP:BEFORE. I observe the nom while on WikiBreak per their talk page has made (a small number) edits in the last 48 hours but has chosen not to return here and I see no evidence of the informing of previous AfD participants whose judgement was to a degree explicitly questioned by the nom. being informed of this discussion.  While these sources in my view are sufficient for WP:GNG (and certainly not to be dismissed by a nom. on WP:VAGUEWAVE and would also note the google scholar link here shows page after page of references of Chock.com content being used in citations to support other credible reports and discussions, matching WP:WEBCRIT (i[WP:NWEB]]) #1.  I therefore call discussion to be closed keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my rule of thumb is I make one administrative action per AfD. Since I relisted I will leave it to another sysop to close. However, I will note while there is no minimum length of time after a relist to close, they normally get closed a week or so after relisting so it probably won't be until then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment and request: I previously closed this discussion, and reverted it after feedback that it was inappropriate. I am awaiting confirmation that it is still appropriate for me to comment/make my thoughts known. I request that the discussion not be closed until I receive that answer (from User:Barkeep49 or another admin). Thanks and best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, you can comment/make your thoughts known in this AfD like you just did. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Usernamekiran is correct. You may comment and !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Withdrawing from corrupted AfD where log of a close then relist was violated. Anyone notice how the previous constributors to the previous AfD's had their viewpoint scummered but were not informed of the new AfD?.  Anyway I'm I'm out of this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination accuses the document of 4 things, each of which are not correct or irrelevant. First, the statement "No significant coverage in WP:RS" is false. examined the prior AfDs and Google Books and found reliable sources, including a book chapter. ( should have found these in a search required by WP:BEFORE). The statement "Poor Alexa rank." is true but misleading: the site was defunct at the time. When the site was operating, per User:Djm-leighpark the rank was 47,000 (not that Alexa rank is required by WP:NWEB anyways). Third, the statement "Fails WP:NWEB" is also not true: the site "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (it passes WP:GNG for the same reason.) Fourth, although the website is defunct, that does not make it non-notable. Finally, I apologize for my erroneous closure, which I reverted because of thoughtful and helpful concerns brought by . It was not my intent in doing so to pressure Djm-leighpark into withdrawing their helpful comments, and I presume Barkeep49 did not intend to do so either. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Alexa ranking was only someone's memory, and could have been global or national. The content of the BBC source was disputed at a previous AfD. The Press of India may relate to a tweet.  And is the book author independent? 109.157.77.207 (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2019 (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.