Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Empire


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

India Empire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced article about a magazine that does not claim or establish notability. A Google search does not indicate obvious notability.  Sandstein  16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: uncited without clear notably. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:  After a Google search, I found that it is a magazine which reflects on India's culture as it is one of the few news outlets that focuses on global issues.  I intend to rewrite the article soon.    Willy625 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This has not happened so far.  Sandstein   07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --moreno oso (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I don't see any need to relist this article, a delete nomination and two delete comments. and one keep vote that claims to be rewriting the article soon. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Two external listings:  and . Additionally, its been going for 5 years.  DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * is just a directory that confirms that the magazine exists. The same goes for, which also reads like press release/advertising copy. Listing in (unreliable, presumably paid-for) business directories no more establishes notability for businesses than inclusion in telephone directories establishes notability for people. Also, just existing for five years does not make anything notable.  Sandstein   07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. The above articles mentioned does not establish its notability. What's more, the second article looks like an advertisement with phrases like "with no rival(sic) even close to it." Dengero (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Sandstein's analysis of the sources. We have verification, but not significant coverage that could form the basis of an article.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This debate was unsatisfactory because it failed to consider the possibility of a redirect to British Raj. "India Empire" is a plausible search term (for "Indian Empire") and therefore should not be a redlink.  However, it's not tenable to relist it a third time, so I'd encourage an uninvolved closer to redirect instead of deleting.— S Marshall  T/C 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's never anything stopping anyone from creating a redirect after an AfD has closed as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'll do that after the present article has been deleted.  Sandstein   20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no great fan of the "delete then redirect" mentality. With our new content licence there's no technical reason why it can't be done, but it always makes me uncomfortable to delete the material and then create a redirect.  What's the purpose of hiding the history?  Who benefits from that?— S Marshall  T/C 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's basically the discussion about why have a deletion process at all rather than simply redirect or blank all content we don't want (see WP:PEREN), but I don't think that it would be useful to discuss this wikiphilosophical issue here.  Sandstein   21:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying "we should never hide the history, ever". I'm saying "why hide the history in this case?"— S Marshall  T/C 22:42, 20 June 2010 (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.