Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Probe (India)


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Probe (India)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable media organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows hits in primary unreliable sources. In summary WP:NCORP is definitely not met. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Four hours ago, I moved the same article into draftspace Draft:The Probe (India). I also told the creator to wait sometime before resubmitting for review. Now he has recreated it again. So Im confused whether to vote as Delete or Draftify in this case. So consider my vote as somewhere between these two. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , Just read the comment. It appears we misread each other. The article was recreated before i got in touch with you first. So it was not any act of defiance or cause of provocation as read. AGreed that you had advised to consider revising it with more citations and you had suggested that we could take our own time. Since you wrote that after i had restored the article, it was naive on my part to assume that the current restoration os Okay till revised. Sorry for that. Moreover, i got back to this only now, i had a full day class and was down with a severe migraine. Hence the delay in replying. Be assured that the guidelines will be followed . Let me reiterate that i did not restore the article after your first response, it was done before that and was left at that for reasons mentioned. I have explained things and the way it transpired to the best of my conscience. You may choose a course of action that you deem my explanations deserve best, the mentioned wiki article too. Thank you. pilgrimhawk 09:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, sometimes misunderstandings like this can happen. No worries. My opinion remains the same. It is to draftify the article. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I see that the Twitter link and Youtube links are cleaned up . Are they not allowed? I do see it on some reviewed and approved Wiki pages . Am just trying to understand if only certain criteria of standards are met, only then one could give the links to social media pages? I do have the link of quite a few wiki pages that do not seem to have met the basic criteria, but existed for years. Am sure there must be some merit Wiki editors saw in that to allow them to exist. Could i point you to those pages, and i mean no offence here. I am just trying to understand what is really allowed. Just trying to get a deeper understanding of Wiki standards. pilgrimhawk 12:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment— No, social media links are not considered reliable sources because they are considered “user generated” see WP:USERG hence not independent of the organization thus is of no value to WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for clarifying it, but despite this guideline many wiki pages still do have links to social media. The reason for that appears mysterious to me. :, Coming to the contested article here , ie. "The Probe (India)" , i have a request to place before your kind consideration, that is if there is merit in what i am going to point to below. May i point you to these Wiki pages that existed for years despite the way it is written and poor citation / references. I am intrigued by what makes them remain unquestioned. I mean no offence to any one here and i am only driven by the curiosity to find oout what is real Wiki merit. Kindly have a look at the following pages :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairanjana_Ghosh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._A._Beena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umarji_Anuradha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahar_Zaman_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhu_Joy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruchira_Gupta

In the light of the fact that the above articles were not scrutinised and continue to grow, should the The Probe (India) article be treated as one poised for immediate deletion. COuld we not consider it was 'under revision' article ? The organisation is just few days old, and it would be really considerate on your part to mark it as ' under revision' and not 'for deletion', more so when the above mentioned pages continue to remain unquestioned for years.122.171.154.222 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are milions of articles in this project and most of them are thrashes. But some of them goes unnoticed. If you believe the above mentioned articles should be deleted, you can nominate it for AFD. I had tried, and is still trying my best to remove such type of articles from here. Just because of the reason Other stuff exists, we cannot keep articles like this. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I guess the 'just because of the fact that other stuff exists' part ia a bit exaggerated misrepresentation. All that i meant is the massive time these articles existed untouched and so be it. I posed the question because the very fact that they continue to exist made me wonder is there are other parameters that i need to look into. Any way, i rest my case on that here. In the emanwhile i shall try my best to work on the The Probe (India) article as you suggested.Thank you.pilgrimhawk 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge: The article lacks coverage and half the article is already about its founder. I recommend it to be merged with Prema Sridevi, the founder.defcon5 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, i agree.The Probe (India) lacks coverage at the moment. The website was launched just few days ago and it will take some time before it is discussed and written about. But work is on and good stories are getting published on the portal. Since it is a slow journalism initiative stories/ reports are published after deep investigations and thorough deliberations, more so because it breaks away from the breaking news frenzy. I wish the page is allowed time to grow as better coverage comes in, more so when it is sustained only by people's support. Thank you. pilgrimhawk 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotions nor a Yellow Pages. There are some worrying comments by a COI editor that the website is only a few days old and that it will grow - to me, this shows the intention of having an article is for the purposes of promotion/advertising/credibility. There are zero indications of notability. This topic should not exist in article space and it will likely be many months/years at the very least before there are sufficient references to establish notability. For those reasons, neither Merge not Draftify are valid options either. Topic fails NCORP.  HighKing</b>++ 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NCORP. ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 17:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , Saddened to see that the page was deleted, more so at a time when i was about to update the page with a credible citation. I was suggested by another WiKi editor in discussion to take some time and build the page adhering to the guidelines which was taken in good spirit and professional ethics. I am at a loss to understand many pages that continue to exist in WikiPedia that has clearly flouted many norms. In this specific instance, i was only trying my best to do what i could based on the suggestions and guidelines. Could we reinstate the page with one citation that recently came through and give the mentioned page a fair treatment. When i said "website is only a few days old and that it will grow" all that i meant is this - it is very seldom one media writes on another media, more so on a new digital independent ad-free news platform. We shall continue to produce good work and wait till it finds mention in credible sources. This is what i meant and there is no dubious intention behind this. I do not understand the rationale behind the usage of "Yellow Pages". If anyone here cared to look at the website and the luminaries who endorsed this initiative( some of them have dedicated Wiki pages) such a thoughtless statement would not have been made. Thank you. pilgrimhawk 05:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.