Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dharti Rawalakot (2nd 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   delete. There are keep !votes here asserting this publication is notable, but none of them to my mind demonstrate how this is the case beyond "it's just notable". Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Dharti Rawalakot
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable newspaper, finds no mention in reliable sources covering the topic significantly thus failing WP:GNG. In the earlier AfD, a keep concern was that there is an article on the subject at Urdu language Wikipedia (ur:روزنامہ جنگ), but the linked article is about a different newspaper (Daily Jang) that probably was added here by mistake. S M S  Talk 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  S M S   Talk 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  S M S   Talk 19:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is only paper in rawalakot, rawalakot is a large town, we don't get jang paper bec it is from pindi and not show up for one day late. No need to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.169.164 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A local paper in a large town is in of itself notable. Not really sure if being in wiki makes any difference to the editors of this paper. They don't read English. Just like mullah Omar could care less about what wiki editors have to say about Taliban. They won against two super powers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)   Striking !votes by a blocked sockpuppet. --  At am a  頭 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite notable newspaper from Rawalakot, should be kept. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please let me also know how you find this a notable paper? -- S M S   Talk 23:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. It is the only news paper. So by default it is notable.

2602:304:CE9A:9A40:79CE:63F5:826B:35AB (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Answer Well, what we want in a notable newspaper, they have an online version where they update newsfeed regularly and they have circulation. Offcourse they are not at the level of Jang or Dawn that you would find their reference somewhere, they have only been there for less than four years and I see the article does not have anything promotional in it as well, it only says that newspaper is there and their website proves the existence. Now I wouldn't pay a monthly web hostage fee, if i don't have a business, i don't know why would somebody else do that. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sajjad, We want a notable newspaper to have received non-trivial coverage in reliable and independent sources. I say it again a subject is considered notable at Wikipedia if it is covered:
 * non-trivially in
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * independent and
 * secondary sources.
 * Now I don't see it satisfying a single bit of this criteria. The only source in the article only has a passing mention of this paper. And Existence ≠ Notability. The argument that It Exists just proves that it is not a Hoax, I never claimed that it is a Hoax, neither did I claim that it is promotional. Also in a deletion discussions one is supposed to give an argument by explaining how a particular subject meet or does not meet any of the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (related to deletion), not our personal opinions or what we think about the subject. Neither is this the venue to discuss alterations to these policies and guidelines. And I don't find reference to any policy in your answer. -- S M S   Talk 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note I have added some refs which have elevated the status of this article, there is no reason to delete it, notability has established. Thank you Sajjad Altaf (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Striking !votes by a blocked sockpuppet. --  At am a  頭 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note The reference which was added is quoting four different stories from this newspaper, it's not just a passing reference and this is alongside other major newspapers. More than enough to establish notability. I didn't want to comment on this topic anymore but i don't want this to be deleted considering the last note left on this topic which denies notability. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to Closing Admin: Though I don't find any value in the comments made by IP editors (as of now), but this SPI may be helpful in closing this discussion. -- S M S   Talk 02:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note While deciding this matter, please consider the sources which were added after this discussion was started and not just the votes here. I have spent quite considerable time of my life finding those sources and i don't want that to go wasted. Such an action of not considering the sources would discourage me a lot from trying to improve Wikipedia in future. I have done this without any personal interest of mine. Thank you Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Delete No evidence of WP:N. The two sources fail WP:RS, the first being primary and the second being a trivial quote from the paper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't even try to assert notability, much less actually prove it. Use of sockpuppet accounts above doesn't suggest a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedia article either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note The second source is not a trivial quote, news stories of a newspaper quoted in third party source establish notability for the newspaper. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Based only on English-language sources, it fails WP:GNG. I think that there are people who who have already !voted and have a reasonable capability to search suitable non-English ones. Assuming that the "second source" referred to by Sajjad above is this one, it adds nothing to the notability claims. It is just a news digest report that aggregates what various media say - it doesn't actually discuss this newspaper in any meaningful manner. As per someone's precis of the guidelines above, we'd need multiple sources also, not just this one. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No non-trivial third party coverage to support WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:13, 8 March 2014 (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.