Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Heritage India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I simply found nothing better to suggest better improvement and this seems more like an indie local magazine that wouldn't have gotten much coverage with my best search results here and here. Although the Barnes and Noble connection is admirable, there's not much for a better separate article and, at best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere. Pinging taggers and. SwisterTwister  talk  20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- It looks like a popular glossy magazine on the history of India as portrayed in surviving structures. I suspect that its equivalent in UK would be deemed notable.  I note that it is also downloadable (no doubt for a fee).  However, I would want to judge notability by its circulation and we have not data on that.  The current article is essentially an ADVERT.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, although somewhat weakly. I have found a few sources which I think are just sufficient (although, as I emphasize, very narrowly) to meet the GNG. However, I would consider changing my !vote in the event of a strong argument to the contrary. As the nom mentions, the article could also use cleanup, since it reads like an advertisement at present. -- Biblio  worm  16:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Entry reads like an advertisement, nothing really notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete because zero reliable sources (WP:V) are present in the article itself, and nobody seems to want to bother to add them even if they exist.  Sandstein   20:26, 9 October 2015 (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.