Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharitri (newspaper)


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dharitri (newspaper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only source is official website and a list of related newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the biggest newspaper in its state with a circulation of about 1.5M. It passes WP:GNG as there is coverage in sources such as Gender Bias in Indian News Media and Starvation and India’s Democracy. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that the size of circulation is directly relevant to notability, but do you have a reliable source to support that? Frankly, I'd think for a paper with that large an audience, there'd be a great deal of independent coverage available. Also, could you link to these sources? I'd like to review them. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Waggie, according to WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST you should look for sources yourself and not just mass nominate publications in the hope that others will reference. This is not the purpose of AfDs! gidonb (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I did not explain very well in my rationale. I did nominate more than a few articles at the same time, but I went through each one, cleaned up the unsourced/promotional content (to allow a fair representation of the subject here at AfD, rather than the prior PROMO mess) and I did follow BEFORE and NEXIST before nominating and I did not find any sources that offer reliable, comprehensive coverage, but thank you for linking me to them anyway. I'm glad that good sourcing was offered for one of the noms, and in that case I took the sourcing and actually made a start in improving the article and withdrew the nomination. Waggie (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not reference the articles yourself? These are huge newspapers and there are so many sources out there! Your system of finding nothing, knowing nothing, mass nominating, and requesting everyone to reference for you comes across as extremely lazy. Even when people spell out sources, they still need to link these for you. No insights whatsoever to India or media are offered. You write all the while politely but that is worth only so much. This series of nominations is a disgrace. gidonb (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N. Very important newspaper. Article should be expanded though. Should be a WP:SNOW keep. Article should never have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you supply any reliable sources that say Dharitri is a very important newspaper? I'm not able to turn up anything significant, but the language issue might be a barrier to that.  Sharing the information that you used to reach your conclusion would be helpful.  Peacock (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For example: book1, journal1, book2, book3, book4, NDTV, Best Media Info, etc. gidonb (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The user who created this article seems to have done so for promotional purposes – the username is Dharitrilive and has only edited this article with mostly unsourced edits. The username has been reported to Usernames for administrator attention. Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 04:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment promocontent removed and promo user blocked.-- Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, was created 3 years before Dharitrilive  showed up.-- Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -To debunk Davidson's and Gidonb's sources:--
 * This is published by Lulu.com, a self-publishing vanity platform.
 * Fails WP:RS.
 * An election-related-archive states that an industrial unit donated 48k INR to Dharitri, a newspaper.Has been mentioned in a narrative to establish the financial trails in a particular election.
 * Last time, I checked, AFDs are not being used to debunk hoaxes.And, trivialest of trivial coverage (i.e. mere name mentions) don't matter any in establishing notability.
 * This mentions the paper in a list of papers published across the breadth of the country and mention it's founder, foundation year and circulation.
 * We need significant coverage about the paper.Directory-entries doesn't suffice.
 * This states some circulation figures and all that business stuff.
 * The source is non-reliable.No credible faces among the editors and is sort of a house-blog.States:--we have a strong team of dedicated professionals working in Editorial, 'Marketing, Sales and PR functions..........We have successfully reached out to almost all media, marketing and advertisement professionals. Spam.
 * This NDTV piece states:--Somanath Sahu, reporter of Dharitri, was prevented from attending a press conference at the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Bhubaneshwar and threatened with dire consequences for writing reports that went against the police.
 * Yet another trivial coverage and nothing resemblant to significant coverage about Dharitri. The entire article mentions several example of censorship of press-freedom.
 * Thus, a delete from me for failing to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP.I find this source allotting yet another trivial mention as a leading daily along with two other names] but sans any depth of coverage, that does not satisfy a standalone article. I will still run another crawl to locate potential sources. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA#5 (namely, "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets").
 * Indian Readership Survey 2017 ranked the newspaper 4th largest read vernacular daily in the Indian state of Odisha.
 * Indian Social Institute's Social Action places it amongst the top four again.
 * The book Media and Society: Challenges and Opportunities not only significantly covers the full background of the newspaper (see Page 151 onwards, which shows how the Odisha Chief Minister Nandini Satpathy started this in the 1970s with her husband and a lot of other history), it also significantly covers the news publication in multiple pages how the publication is considered amongst the top four in Odisha (from rank 1 to 4) in various factors like national news coverage, international news coverage and so on so forth.
 * "...largest newspaper in Cuttack"
 * More significant coverage in multiple books.
 * Lourdes  19:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Laxmi Publication is India's Lulu and it's the same book, by the same author, which has a publication by Lulu.
 * From when did in-house journals (which are not indexed at anywhere reliable) by departments of universities started being counted as RS?
 * Ref 3 is a collection of papers presented in an university-seminar and whilst reliable upto an extent, is more a case-study.I am ambiguous as to notability.
 * How does being the largest-selling newspaper, in the second most populous city of a state, leads to passage of GNG?
 * And, in your interpretation, NMEDIA guarantees a passage of notability, uptill which circulation-rank? Fifth? tenth? twentieth?
 * Sold 200-600 copies per day, over an entire district and Dharitri topped the lists, is not what I call significant coverage.
 * This is a solid source.Thanks! &#x222F; WBG converse 19:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello WBG, good you found one of the sources to be significant. If you don't find the title of largest-selling newspaper in India's second-largest eastern city to be equivalent to being a "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" (aka NMEDIA#5), I would have to place a comeback query on you asking you, what is then your qualification of NMEDIA#5? The largest newspaper in the country? Well, you need to be more broad-minded, as advised by our notability guidelines. In my opinion, the additional sources I've provided also lead to the passage of GNG. Irrespective of that, the reason we have Subject Specific Guidelines is to ensure that we don't have a narrow-minded GNG approach (this is notwithstanding the fact that this newspaper even passes GNG per the book source coverage). If you wish to only adhere to GNG and nothing else, that is not how an encyclopedia like ours is expected to include articles. Lourdes   04:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what leads you to the fact that Cuttack is ? Unless you do think that Eastern India comprises of only Orissa!:-) NMEDIA#5 to me equates to allotting standalone articles for the top two newspapers in circulation, per state, in absence of any significant GNG-level-coverage in RS.I see that you've not touched upon the point of reliability of in-house university journals.On an aside, this SNG/GNG debate is longstanding and there is an equally valid interpretation (which is what is written at the SNGs, itself) that SNG does not supersede GNG and is a tool to quickly identify chances of securing GNG coverage. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At any case, given a good source, which covers it well-enough, I've switched camps to keep. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 06:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweet... Cheers... Lourdes   10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweet... Cheers... Lourdes   10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.