Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People News Chronicle


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

People News Chronicle

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

Non notable page. All References are paid. PQR01 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now article has been updated and trying to remove the promotional content, but I’m not seeing any promotional content on that. So I request, PQR01 to withdraw this and will be adding more information on that page later on. At the present time, article is complete, notable and have all of the information that must be their. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As current improvements are not improvements, this article remains promotional and shows no indication of notability or use of reliable independent secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Even the article itself tells us very little about the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Also This publication has been recognised and has got award. But whenever I am adding that PQR01 is coming and deleting that. It should not be done, rest depend on you guys, I only wanted to say leave this article so that it can be edited and made more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Without checking the refrences PQR01 is saying that they are paid references. I have picked up all of the organic article which are not paid. Have a review, paid articles do have disclaimer or a tag. Link 1: https://www.uttarpradesh.org/special-news/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-a-news-and-media-website/ Link 2: https://www.oneindia.com/india/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-exploring-entertainment-industry-3362792.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Several of the references have verbatim content taken from the article (Lede, Organisation sections), and thus are obvious press releases. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote - casualdejekyll ) The Wikipedia page which is marked to be deleted is a competitor of Oneindia wich has only few refrences & is still om wikipedia. The pag People News Chronicle has more information and refrences if compared to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:402:101E:C9C6:B544:C6AF:6B78 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles for deletion/Youthistaan is relevant as PNC's sister publication casualdejekyll (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle appears to have been created by Arunpawagere. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * delete' as per WP:RS user:tishkit — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishKit (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote - casualdejekyll ) . Also, After a much research and doing a search for content and references. Now I have given 100% from my side, all of the references speaks about the content that is written their.
 * Now, why article should be their:
 * 1) As it is a leading web portal, which has a competitors Oneindia, Citizen Matters, Mid-Day etc.
 * 2) As compared with the competitors, this news and media organisation has much to talk about and have more valid references.
 * 3) As, this article will stay, it will be updated regularly, which will help article to grow more as at this moment I’m having some more references on which I can see many more content available on google to write about.Arunpawargere (talk)Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, websites don't need in-depth coverage Example: Bahrain Online, Mingjing News, Scarsdale Inquirer, The Overtake, they only need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. People News Chronicle article is not less, but let’s assume they are less but this doesn’t mean that this subject is meaningless. Sometimes the subject is strong enough to demonstrate its notability.Arunpawargere (talk)2409:4053:68D:12AD:B8B8:9A54:9419:248F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 29 January 2022
 * Comment: It's custom at AfD to not !vote twice or more - you can only have one !vote per person. This is also true in most places where !votes or votes happen. I've struck out your original Keep !votes as I assume this one is supposed to supersede it? If you want to unstrike them, that's totally cool. (They're your !votes, after all.) casualdejekyll  21:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PQR01 : As PQR01 mentioned at the starting this page has paid articles. After investigating and checking each article those are attached with references aren’t paid. Later on, I have also seen that users are claiming that Wikipedia page has false information, but they aren’t as I have read the articles, all of the things are mentioned in them. So I don’t think this article should be considered for deletition.Ritukaapur (talk) (This user is a confirmed sock of ) casualdejekyll  16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Comment: Sock comments stricken off, along with logged out edits (please inform me if this is out of process) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 08:42, 2 February 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.