Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPEN (Indian magazine)


 * 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. Many sources have been provided. A lot of them do not constitute significant coverage, but the few that do are sufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OPEN (Indian magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in multiple reliable source to prove this magazine deserves a separate article. The article was previously PRODed, but that was contested with this rationale. Responding to that, bestmediainfo is not a good source, even so, it does not have significant coverage on the OPEN magazine, it is an interview of Manu Joseph with focus on his book Serious Men. The same for the sify interview, it does not have any significant coverage on OPEN magazine. The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Neptune 123 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not sure how WP:product relates to this article as I think that guideline is used when discussing a merge into another article, and I know of no article into which this could reasonably be merged.
 * The article does meet WP:GNG. The easiest way to prove this is to search Google for the article name and the Radia tapes controversy; this magazine was the first major media outlet to publish what is being purported as the largest commercial scam in monetary value to be committed against any entity.  In this case, the scam was about some people receiving government goods and a questionable wiretapping which discovered it.  Both of these are huge issues in India and the world economy right now, and their Wikipedia articles are at 2G spectrum scam and Radia tapes controversy.  Since OPEN is a player in these issues, OPEN is notable for that reason.  Here is a Wall Street Journal interview about the issue; there are dozens of other sources saying that OPEN is the source of the leak and this is not being questioned.
 * I have not been able to find a reliable source critiquing OPEN as a journalistic source. OPEN is distributed widely in most major Indian cities (so they say on their own website) and they do produce original news content.  This is not a reliable source but a magazine blog reviewed them and a software company critiqued their website, and subsequently this critique developed a community around it as a common case study for people to use as a standard design.  I think that somewhere someone must have written a scholarly review of the magazine but I have not found one.
 * Still, I say keep the article for the sake of the magazine being an entity of political interest. In addition to those two Wikipedia articles, it is participating in a related court case against the Tatas concerning free speech in India.  Blue Rasberry  05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Blue Rasberry
 * "I am not sure how WP:product relates to this article as I think that guideline is used when discussing a merge into another article, and I know of no article into which this could reasonably be merged." yes, it can merged into RPG Enterprises if it survives AfD.
 * "The article does meet WP:GNG. The easiest way to prove this is to search Google for the article name and the Radia tapes controversy" - NO, the article does not meet WP:GNG because WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. Read WP:GNG carefully.
 * "the scam was about some people receiving government goods and a questionable wiretapping which discovered it. Both of these are huge issues in India and the world economy right now, and their Wikipedia articles are at 2G spectrum scam and Radia tapes controversy. Since OPEN is a player in these issues, OPEN is notable for that reason." - That does not answer my rationale for deletion - the magazine does not have significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources.
 * "OPEN is distributed widely in most major Indian cities (so they say on their own website) and they do produce original news content." Again, this is not a criteria under WP:GNG.
 * "Still, I say keep the article for the sake of the magazine being an entity of political interest." - WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This magazine and its editor have been the subject of substantial media coverage due to their publication of the radia tapes. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The rationale for this AfD is "No significant coverage in multiple reliable source." You said, "This magazine and its editor have been the subject of substantial media coverage". But according to WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The article does not meet this criteria. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Evidence cited above shows this is a notable publication in India. Also because it is cited in many other reliable sources (see WP:NMEDIA, Newspapers, magazines and journals #4).  Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Indian media is better with this article than without it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not a criteria under WP:GNG. --Neptune 123 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Suitable forked content of RPG Enterprises even if it wasn't independently notable due to huge radia controversy.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Suitable forked content of RPG Enterprises" - explain how is it suitable? You failed to address the rationale behind the nomination. --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its notable in my opinion, replying to every editor who disagrees with you is not necessary.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Its notable in my opinion" - you have to explain why you belive it is notable when you are voting at AfD. Per AfD, When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You just joined wikipedia 11 days ago, please don't preach, I am aware of the "rules" as they are. Bludgeon me if you must but I see sourcing out there for this subject beyond what your nominating statement recites.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not preaching, I'm just showing the fault in your argumentation. And when I joined is irrevalent, there is no need to use ad hominem to win an argument. You said, "I see sourcing out there for this subject beyond what your nominating statement recites" you are just repeating your argument. Where are the sources? --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No doubt every source I find you'll say 'not significant enough'.  If 2 minutes finds this many, we can continue forever like this.--Milowent • talkblp-r  06:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Sigh. Your behavior shows you still have a lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N. This article is about R Rajmohan, who is about to join a magazine called Open, NOT about the magazine itself. It also does not provide any coverage of the magazine, except for a quote from the person mentioned. The only source that addresses the topic in detail is probably this article. But the reliability of afaqs is questionable. They do not have any editorial borad and I don't see any fact-checking policy. dancewithshadows.com is a blog and fails WP:RS. The last source is Media Newsline, which is operated by a digital marketing company  to advertise the products of its clients. Media Newsline is a business-to-business publication  and falls under WP:NOTRS. --Neptune 123 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The amazing Milo-Kreskin is right again.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, i meant to add these to the last comment..--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. This reference is from Courrier International. Courrier International does not report recent events, it republishes articles published in other sources. This reference is aimed to make the reader familiar with the source from which Courrier International is republishing content, it is not a report or article about OPEN. 2. As I said above, afaqs does not look like a RS. 3. exchange4media looks to be a RS, but I still have doubt whether those two articles in exchange4media provides significant coverage to warrant an article on this magazine. This is an article prior to the launch of the magazine. This reports a news about a magazine going to launched, not a report about a magazine. Hence the information given in this article about OPEN is speculation, not fact. And this article does not meet the criteria of significant coverage. --Neptune 123 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added note: Another point, most of the sources (though most don't qualify as RS) above do not describe the magazine in detail, rather the name OPEN is mentioned while quoting a person. --Neptune 123 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Among other absurdities: "This reports a news about a magazine going to launched, not a report about a magazine."  Really?  A news report about the launch of OPEN magazine is not a report about OPEN magazine?  Please stop such trolling; am I on Candid Camera now?--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  12:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:

The editors who voted keep are showing WP:ILIKEIT attitude. All of them failed to address two points 1. The article does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable source and 2. significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.

In my reply to Blue Rasberry, I have shown his arguments are bordering WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INTERESTING. , having failed to refute the rationale behind the nomination, resorted to ad hominem as a last resort to win the argument. I hope the closing admin knows what he/she is doing. --Neptune 123 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being a weenie now, you know.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 06:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Radia tapes controversy clearly have gained them some current notice. However, to see if this is just a blip notice due to this one incident, we should look for coverage about the magazine aside from the tapes.  As it turns out, the magazine is was of sufficient note, that articles were written about its launch.  and  are articles where OPEN is the primary subject of the article.  As such, this meets the criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources.  When comlbined with the tapes controversy, it surely meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (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.