Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People News Chronicle (2nd nomination)


 * 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  02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

People News Chronicle
AfDs for this article:


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

Previously deleted. PQR01 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt While not WP:G4 due to the addition of the website being banned briefly, the article is significantly more promotional than the deleted one, and the only new non-Twitter source doesn't seem reliable at all. Jumpytoo Talk 04:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand you Jumpytoo. Let me try my best to remove any promotional message. Thank you for your input. But on the references, I would tell you that they are reliable, independent, and verifiable sources. Please check through the links, you will notice they are reliable news sources and some are even competitors of PNC. I'll be glad to hear your feedback on this. Goo Figure (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I noticed that PQR01 pointing out that Wikipedia previously deleted the page. That is true. The grounds were that it did not meet the notability criterion and references were not independent. However, take a careful look at the new page. You will hardly see paid references or a lack of notability. I have highlighted various areas where PNC has been recognized and awarded, which tells us that the organization is highly notable. In terms of references, I have used independent, reliable, and verifiable sources. And for this, I also invite Jumpytoo to take a look. You will realize that the references are qualifying. You mentioned that there were promotional messages and I have subsequently removed anything that sounds like a promotion. I am not immune to mistakes and I am ready to accept to make the right changes when given the opportunity. I welcome you to help me by pointing out where exactly you think I might have gone wrong. Guys please, let us reach a consensus about this and remove it from Articles for deletion. Thank you all. Goo Figure (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt - no signs of reliable, independent coverage of this site. All links are to Twitter posts or the same press release. The only other page is a post that the site was blocked, which was self-reported on Twitter. All promotional junk. Evaders99 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello Evaders99, did you really mean "all links are to Twitter or same press release". I think that is a mistake. There are 10 references there and only three lead you to Twitter. You also mentioned that "The only other page is a post that the site was blocked...". If this is not deliberately being dishonest, I don't know what is. Well, FYI, apart from Twitter, this page has five other independent links: Google Maps, Mid-Day, Oneindia, Filmbeat, and Nagpur Oranges. There is a sixth one (peoplenewschronicle.com) but I would say that is self-reported. But you coming and saying "delete" because "all links are to Twitter" is dishonesty and it is unfair to do that. Goo Figure (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello members. In my opinion, this page should be kept. Even though it was deleted, we can look back at the reasons for the initial deletion and agree on whether the issues have been resolved. Note that the previous page was weak in terms of references which were mostly promotional, notability—whereby the page did not meet the requirements, and it had little to no independent sources. Looking at the new page, these issues have been addressed, at least, to a large extent. The page has had references replaced and the use of independent ones employed. We can also agree that it is notable given the wide media coverage it received regarding its launch as well as the awards and recognitions. I believe that is enough to let this article sail through. I can only imagine the hard work and input here by the authors. They have demonstrated the willingness to rectify errors when they are pointed out. We should be considerate and lenient enough to keep this page and possibly prevent it from future nomination for deletion. I hope we can, at least, agree on something: That the issues raised on the previous page have been resolved. This page should be kept. Sonamnegi121 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking comment by CU-confirmed sock of the account that last wrote this article. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional rubbish. "The history of PNC dates back to December 2021". Rathfelder (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Guys, I have heavily edited the article. I believe it is good now. We can check and conclude the matter. I promise to look for independent sources and update the article accordingly. I will keep developing it, and I welcome your views. Kindly see the page and consider closing this discussion. Goo Figure (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional. Additionally, there may be sock concerns, as the creator of the article that was deleted at the last AfD was blocked for sockpuppeting. casualdejekyll  03:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Speedy Delete and Salt as G11 and potentially G5. Not only have multiple people agreed that the current article is promotional, multiple patently false claims have been removed from it (see this diff and this diff), and the article was originally created by User:Simransertt (who is blocked for promotion), and then later by User:Arunpawargere (who is blocked as a sockpuppeteer). casualdejekyll  03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to Casualdejekyll, I think (this diff) is correct. It has all of the needed information. The only problem is that it seems to contain extra information yet it was just supposed to more focus on awards. Other things were not supposed to be on the reference article. Similarly, this diff) is correct because the ranking can be seen on the ranking Crunchbase page (which is a respected site). You can check the rankings as well as other information here: . Guys you need to know that your comments are being taken with the seriousness they deserve. That is why whenever a concern is raised, I go to the article and address it promptly. The continuous editing should be seen as an effort to have the article meet the standards required. Please try to be considerate in your deliberations. It is not like I am trying to hide something, no. I am just trying to make sure that whenever an issue is raised, it is promptly addressed to try and merit this article. Goo Figure (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those diffs are correct, though what I think you meant to say is that the things removed in the diffs were correct. The second edit wasn't made by me, but on the subject of cohorts: Not only did the source cited say absolutely nothing of the sort, but the claim itself can be proved false with some simple googling (|like here). The first cohort of the Google News Initiative in India consisted of BehanBox, Bisbo, East Mojo, ED Times, Headline Network, Main Media, Suno India, The Bridge, The Cue, and The Probe. That is it. And none of those have anything to do with Youthistaan or People News Chronicle, last I checked. casualdejekyll  14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Additionally, if you read the edit summary of the second diff, you'd know that Crunchbase is not a reliable source.) casualdejekyll  14:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Still on Casualdejekyll, I am Goo Figure. I am not what you are saying I am and I was not blocked before. I did not create the previously deleted article. I only recreated this page after it was deleted. I have never been banned or blocked or whatever it should be by Wikipedia. You should investigate more but please use other methods. The one you used gave you false red flags. Have you ever seen this account blocked? In terms of G11, it does not apply because the content was notable but I had issues. First, I could not find good sources to back the claims. For example, an award I know they earned was deleted because I did not back the claims with good references. Of course, there are issues with references. And I accepted to remove them and identify that such sections need references. Second, I had not mentioned them in a neutral way. For example, awards were somehow detailed (which was not necessary), something like "Staff" had a link redirecting to PNC webpage and such like things. But I made edits and the article meets the requirements. Therefore, whereas it seems G11, promotional content was either purged or replaced with neutral content. Goo Figure (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Goo Figure, you have to understand where I'm coming from, right? Literally every other account that has created this article at some point in time, as well as another account that has !voted in this very AfD, User:Sonamnegi121, has been blocked as a confirmed sock of Arunpawargere/Simranserrt. So another brand new account immediately creating a promotional article on the same topic is definitely something to be suspicious of. Although technically I cannot say either way whether or not you are the same person, it's very hard to assume good faith when by my count six other accounts have been confirmed as the same person creating this article over and over. casualdejekyll  18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ARTSPAM about subject lacking sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet inclusion requirements, particularly, WP:CORP. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nearly zero depth-of-coverage from reliable sources; just mentions and a press release. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete/Salt. This appears to be a scam SEO/Newsagg sink, frankly. The images on that google maps link are stolen stock images. The "staff" listing that previous added by the author of the article here seems to be a complete fabrication. The first person on the list "Aldous McEwan" has an image stolen for journalist Dainius Radzevičius and his bio is "He’s best known for writing science fiction, entertainment including the bestseller Redshirts, which won the Hugo Award for Best Novel". This will come as a great shock to John Scalzi. The entry for "Ethan Hansen" is Ethan Cohen with a nonsense bio. This is just a start; there are a lot of pretty outlandish claims on the about page, and the sources given are riddled with typos. I honestly can't see this as anything but a scam; will dig in to more later to see if I can spot the relations to other SEO scams like this. Kuru   (talk)  18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Many of the 'writers' on this site have Gmail accounts rather than website accounts, and per Kuru's findings this is a falsehood of a site, in addition to being extremely packed with advertising and SEO junk designed to pull in clicks.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apology to User:Goo Figure, as a CU has determined that they are a different user to Arunpawargere. (This is technically unrelated to the AfD, but I felt it was worth adding.) casualdejekyll  20:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apology NOT GRANTED How do you send me apologies when "Although technically I cannot say either way whether or not you are the same person..."? isn't that supposed to be BS? Goo Figure (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, ok. If you're going to be like that have fun. This has already veered way off topic anyway. casualdejekyll  11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Per WP:G11. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have made major rectifications on the article and I hope this time around it passes this test. I have added references. When you look at the article now, it technically does not have promotional content and removed things that look like adverts. Concerns raised before have been addressed not to mention that efforts are still ongoing in the background to have the article made even better. By now I believe I have looked into most if not all the issues you guys raised. I hope we are reasonable enough to see this and approve the article now. Goo Figure (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If by "in the background", you mean the owner of the site is quickly trying to correct the utter nonsense that was pointed out earlier. Links to blogs and press releases or other paid placement in junk sources does not help. It's pretty clear this is a straight up scam. I'll let this AFD run out so that non-admins have tools to rectify any future unethical editing.  Kuru   (talk)  03:59, 10 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.