Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamara Hind


 * 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. Consensus is clear, and sourcing is anemic. BD2412 T 04:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hamara Hind

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The only nice source this has is from Daily Excelsior but that doesn't help it pass the WP:NWEB criteria. It doesn't pass WP:GNG and there's no indication towards WP:NNEWSPAPER. I tried a BEFORE in Urdu language and couldn't find anything to help this article. Comments! ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Was accepted under WP:NMEDIA but I see why nom would prefer WP:NWEB since they were still planning to go in print. However, DD News (government website) and Daijiworld Media (identified as a WP:RS on the noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#daijiworld.com) along with Daily Excelsior as identified by the nom should be enough to meet GNG. Also to closing admin, the nom is outcome of existing ANI issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unhealthy_stalking_(hounding?)_by_another_editor) so comments and intentions behind should be weighed accordingly. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * well, Arza Safiya's article from Daijiworld Media looks fine, and the one from DE is also okay. The governmental source you pointed to, is inaccessible. These articles put together don't make much WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. Could you please explain why do you think this meets NMEDIA because I really don't see any points being met. I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if I'm convinced by your argument. Otherwise let this remain open to the community for discussion. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  07:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being open to discussion. WP:NMEDIA is a convoluted criteria to begin with. And editors would pick and choose the parts that appeal to them (like we end up doing in WP:CORPDEPTH). NMEDIA goes till the point to say ‘’The basic claim of notability must be verifiable in at least one reliable source which is independent of the topic itself before the presumption of notability is granted’’ We surely have more than 1. But, my reasons were different. First was C5 ‘'are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets’' since they are other major Urdu newspapers in News Live (Indian TV channel) source (also seems a decent WP:RS but not enough material for GNG) and other was C4, are ‘frequently cited by other reliable sources’ like Daijiworld Media, Daily Excelsior, DD News and News Live (Indian TV channel). I see DD is not working anymore but as per WP:KDL, such links are still useful and might come back to life again. Which means we can’t deter from the fact that it was cited by the government news channel of the country. With this, I also felt that there might be more in print since Urdu, from what I know, is bigger in the traditional print industry as opposed to online. Also, since they have an E-paper, they would be counted under WP:NMEDIA since Epapers are newspapers (read in some thread I can’t recall). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. But where has this source been "frequently cited"? If two sources (I'm not able to access the third, and we don't know what and how much content is there) discuss them for something once, how does that become a "frequent citation"? "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content" How do we claim that the Hamara Hind is meeting #5 which says "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets", when we don't have at least the three best sources? I'm now leaving this to be analyzed by other Wikipedians! ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends how you define frequently. What you have quoted and aspect of three best sources is the GNG part of NMEDIA. I am referring to other special criteria. Like I said, we will pick and choose what parts of guideline appeal to us and how we see them. Yes, let others weigh in. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Nomadicghumakkad, the subject having enough citations to claims notability. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. There is no reasonable claim to meeting GNG or NWEB. One claim to fame can be that the owners of this newspaper were castigated for engaging in a giant pro-India disinformation campaign (1, 2) using shadowy newspapers etc. but notability is not inherited. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Paid news is a menace in India and articles like the one over News Live TV and Daily Excelsior with no authors are obviously advertisements. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as explained above. DE website has many regular news articles which have byline By Daily Excelsior. DD news headline gives an indication that it was an in-depth article.Timetraveller80 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Getting into two news pieces doesn't mean that the subject has been frequently cited. It doesn't meet WP:NMEDIA.  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 17:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the fact that this is owned by the Srivastava Group which is known for owning a network of fake news websites. The three "citations" read like blatant ads and what they say is not consistent with what RS has reported about the group. I'd take the DD deadlink with a bucket of salt. See, a related nomination at Articles for deletion/New Delhi Times (newspaper). Also, note the editor in chief Ankit Srivastava is listed as the editor in chief of the New Delhi Times as well, how many "newspapers" is this guy the editor of again? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be yet another fake media outlet by Srivastava Group. See this article for a little back information. --SVTCobra 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete See https://www.disinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20191213_InfluencingPolicymakers-with-Fake-media-outlets.pdf for more info on this disinformation hoax.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete a fake media outlet by Srivastava Group. It is a disinformation and not a notable topic. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - per editors who have shown this to be a fake media outlet. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure what to make of this one. A lot of the arguments above are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the sources cited don't seem to mention this specific website. So given that nothing is proven there seem to be basically two possibilities here: it's a legitimate website, in which case WP:NMEDIA guidelines apply and it may pass; or it's a fake media outlet, in which case WP:GNG would apply if there is significant coverage of this specific site, and there doesn't seem to be. I'd suggest redirecting to the Srivastava Group article, except there doesn't seem to be one (arguably there could be one, the company itself seems to be well covered in decidedly non-PR reporting). Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From sources, this is a fake media site, the info on the wiki page is false, and it is without coverage other than general coverage of the Srivastava Group. I could see this being redirected to Fake_news_in_India. But, to me, deletion seems the best route as there's not coverage of the Hamara Hind specifically. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉</b> 23:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that specifically mentions this site, by name, as one of the fake sites in question, or states that every site owned by the company is a hoax? If not, then the burden of proof has not been met. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources that have covered the company have stated that around 265 fake sites were identified, they don't provide coverage to every single one of them but have not noted that the company operates any legitimate news organisation. Also WP:NMEDIA would still apply for disinformation websites, the arguement for deletion is that the article is a hoax as it is pretending to be a legitimate newspaper and has no independent coverage. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To that end, it has been found that the Srivastava network's sites republishes (plagiarizes) a bunch of actual news from around the world so they can slip in their fake news stories less conspicuously and have more content. Meanwhile, on-wiki it has been alleged there are bad actors operating on Wikipedia attempting to further legitimize Srivastava and its sites. One may already have been identified. --SVTCobra 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. (and rewrite) or merge to an article about  the Srivastava Group. we need to cover fake news sites comprehensively, because it's here people will look for authentic information.  But this can probably be done in a combination article for the websites of the Group, with redirects from alll of their titles.  DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @DGG speaking for myself, elaborating on my delete reason, the article is fit case for WP:TNT as it simply elaborates the fake facade of the fake site. I do agree that this page must be covered in a short para at Srivastava Group page, but it will have to be written from the scratch. There is nothing usable in this page under AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a redirect to Fake news in India. --SVTCobra 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would say this should be redirected only after deleting this article first. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I am convinced that it's a disinformation as well as a fake media outlet and a hoax. Does not pass WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This article doesn't meet any notability criteria. This doesn't pass WP:GNG. And by getting into two news pieces doesn't mean that the subject has been frequently cited. It doesn't meet WP:NMEDIA. GaffarSofi96 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage is insufficient to establish that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks coverage from notable/reliable independent news source. Not notable. It will fail to meet WP:GNG. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2022 (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.