Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahrvand


 * 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 (non-admin closure), consensus seems to keep Fr33kman talk  APW 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shahrvand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a foreign-language newspaper based in Canada. There are no sources cited at all, not even the paper's own web site. Only Google hits are directory-style listing, the paper's own site and this very article (#2 ranked). Claims to be largest Persian-language newspaper in North America, but there is nothing to verify this. Looks like a copy-and-paste from some source. I posted warning tags on this article and waited for improvement, but none has been forthcoming. Time to go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   --Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I toned the language down, so I think it is relatively neutral now. I think that newspapers can be notable even if other newspapers don't write about them because a newspaper's reporting and editorials can have a significant effect on public opinion and decision-making. (Note the one-line reference at the bottom of http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5920/5920_14.html, though.) Shahrvand is also the name of an unrelated company which operates chain stores. --Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if circulation numbers are accurate. A newspaper with 110,000 readers in any country and in any language is notable. --NellieBly (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I could find no verification online, and since it is a free-circulation paper, there are no audited circulation numbers to be had. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (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.