Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambad


 * 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. Consensus that WP:GNG and WP:NME are satisfied. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sambad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only sources are official website and list of related newspapers. Waggie (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG being covered in sources such as Gender bias in Indian News Media and Media and Society: Challenges and Opportunities. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you link to these sources, please? Thanks! I'd be interested in seeing the coverage. Waggie (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , see this source.But, I'm not satisfied given the seemingly unknown author and the publishing house. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The author in that case appears to be a professor at Berhampur University which appears to be a respectable institution. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , nope and that I have researched in some detail, the source is bullshit.
 * He is a mere guest-lecturer and had to entirely depend on vanity-publishers to print his books.
 * An academic, (who is personally known to me), informs that Laxmi publications is the Indian version of LAP and their website reinforces it. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The work on Gender bias in Indian News Media seems to have been published in multiple places, including academic journals It is not unusual for academic work to be redistributed in this way in order to give them it wider circulation, because journals often have limited circulation.  Multiple academics seem to have worked on this including Dr. Sunil Kanta Behera who is described as a "Professor of Eminence" in the faculty.  My impression is that the work is sufficiently reliable for our purpose and it is independent in nature, being an academic review of all of the press of the area. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An academic, (who is personally known to me), informs that Laxmi publications is the Indian version of LAP and their website reinforces it. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The work on Gender bias in Indian News Media seems to have been published in multiple places, including academic journals It is not unusual for academic work to be redistributed in this way in order to give them it wider circulation, because journals often have limited circulation.  Multiple academics seem to have worked on this including Dr. Sunil Kanta Behera who is described as a "Professor of Eminence" in the faculty.  My impression is that the work is sufficiently reliable for our purpose and it is independent in nature, being an academic review of all of the press of the area. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also see this one.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This newspaper clearly passes WP:NMEDIA and the WP:GNG. WP:NCORP bears little relevance. Please nominate wisely! gidonb (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your interest. WP:NCORP is relevant as it's one of the SNGs that would potentially apply here (as Sambad is a company). Certainly, WP:NMEDIA is relevant as well. Could you please clarify how you feel Sambad meets NMEDIA? Waggie (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE and instead, provide sources. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, for now I have added two references in the article. There are many more. Per WP:NEXIST the sources do not need to be in the article, it's sufficient if these exist. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for incorporating those into the article. already noted one of those sources, and the second is only a listing. I'm inclined to count Gender Bias as a reliable source, but that would make only one reliable source with comprehensive discussion. Notability requires comprehensive coverage in multiple sources. I agree that sources only need exist, not necessarily be included in the article, but we do need to actually establish that multiple sources with comprehensive coverage do exist. Thanks again for your time and work on this. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, neither of these books is a listing. These are fine books with WP:SIGCOV for Sambad. It's not all there is either. Just added a third one. Are you sure you a did a thorough WP:BEFORE? The very existence of all these sources is squarely denied in the intro. You may wish to undo all these nominations because they potentially wreck articles on notable newspapers. gidonb (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Four sources now and this is just the tip top of the iceberg. Why not check before nominating? gidonb (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did check before nominating. I make a point of doing so carefully before every AfD I nominate. You need to understand that WP:BEFORE does not require AfD nominators to perform exhaustive searches for sources, only that they make a concerted effort, which I did. I'm not sure what you mean about "tip of the iceberg". Gender Bias and Media and Society look quite promising as sourcing, and I'm glad that we've found them. I wouldn't call the coverage in Indian Press Since 1955 WP:SIGCOV, but it's worthwhile as well. The Business India coverage looks like a highly promotional press release, not reliable. All in all, I'm willing to say that with Gender Bias, Media and Society, and Indian Press Since 1955, we can call it enough. I appreciate the research everyone put into this. If an uninvolved person wishes to close this as keep, I'd be satisfied with that. Waggie (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you honestly overlooked so much WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, maybe withdraw all these bad nominations and improve your search skills before nominating articles again? gidonb (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. When sources are found, and an article is kept and improved, I am very pleased. I have discussed the matter with you professionally and courteously, but you continue to attack my "search skills" and call my nominations "bad". These are not bad nominations, and have actually resulted in many articles being improved to the point of being kept, this is good. Many of these articles have lain fallow for many years with wildly promotional and unsourced content. My search skills are fine, thank you. AfD nominators are not expected to perform exhaustive searches for sources before nominating. I performed reasonable searches and reviewed pages and pages of results that were either not about the subject, or were written by the subject. That people are willing to dig deeper and find good sources is fantastic, and I thank them for their efforts, as I have thanked you. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Odisha's and Odia's most widely read and circulated newspaper. --Titodutta (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC) #5 of Notability_(media). I have not checked #4 in details still. --Titodutta (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, a strong argument in favor of keeping, with a relatively decent source. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.