Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youthistaan


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Youthistaan

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

Non-notable page, all references is paid news. PQR01 (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 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  — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Wikipedia page which is marked to be deleted is a competitor of Oneindia which has only few references & is still on wikipedia. The page People News Chronicle has more information and references if compared to this.
 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Arunpawargere is creator of the article. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete What concerns me here is that Arunpawargere's argument for why the article should be kept appears to be mostly based on "other stuff exists" and accusing PQR01 of holding some sort of grudge against the page. Neither of those arguments really hold much weight. I had an SA table prepared but found that it really wasn't necessary, because of the alarming fact that most of the citations are placed next to sentences which have nothing to do with the actual sources.
 * Source 6 - doesn't say anything about an "inhouse editorial team"
 * Source 9 - nothing about an award
 * Sources 10, 11, 12 - used to cite the completely false claim that Youthistaan was part of the first "cohort" of Google News India. As far as I can tell, this isn't true at all and isn't supported by any of the three sources
 * Source 13 - says nothing about either claim in that section (the 50 articles a day OR the freelance writers)
 * Am I missing something incredibly obvious here? Because this looks pretty bad unless there's something weird about the sources I'm missing. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle is relevant as Youthistaan's sister publication casualdejekyll (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment So sorry, I got it now. Thanks to casualdejekyll for explaining in a better way. As I’m new I was just trying to create the pages which doesn’t exist. I have also created some pages like Kamleshwar Mahadev Temple. Also about this page, yes it should be deleted now, as earlier I thought that we can provide any reference that is present on google, but now I got it, that those references should reference about the words being said, that’s what reference actually is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - so you didn't know that you were supposed to cite your sources? That's.. concerning. casualdejekyll (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I studied the content mentioned on the sources, and that content was all about the page I have created. Also now I am getting all of the valid sources, as soon as I’m free from my job, I will be editing the pages I have created and then will add valid references. At this moment I have collected all of the sources and studied them. Only I have to do is, to edit the page I have created and put the references which I got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:710:2f22:cd4e:2821:749d:316a (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Note from DaxServer: This comment is resigned by Arunpawargere)


 * Keep casualdejekyll, I have updated the references for Business Model, Organisation and Content at this moment. Now I am going to add references for Recognition also just waiting for you to review the changes I made.Arunpawargere (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's.. a little better, but no amount of article editing can surmount that I believe that this does not pass WP:GNG, except for showing that the topic is covered in sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage. Also, you've still got the false claim about the cohort, and the other source issues I listed. (How much of what I wrote did you read? Should I be more concise?)  casualdejekyll (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll ) casualdejekyll At this moment, all of the references that are with the Wikipedia article talks about the written thing only. Especially, I would request you to check references of Business Model, Organisation and Content.
 * Also the important thing here is recognition, which has no references at this moment, but I am having 2 references for that with me, I’m just working hard to get atleast 3 references for that and some more information, which will show its notability.Arunpawargere (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article is also very promotional. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yoonadue What seems to be promotional?


 * Comment. 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.
 * Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll ) 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) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll ), 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. Youthistaan 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) — Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 29 January 2022


 * Comment. Per my comment on Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle, I have struck duplicate !votes from . casualdejekyll  21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment casualdejekyll Yes, votes might be duplicate but I only added Keep in my every new comment. Also as I have read about voting and all from Wikipedia, it clearly says that for deletition of articles voting doesn’t matters.
 * Also I would request you to comment on my earlier valid comments which are commented only after taking knowledge from Wikipedia. Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 29 January 2022


 * , the reason I haven't been replying to your comments is because they are mostly repeats of your previous comments - which are you essentially saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. I'll go back to the other discussion and see if there's anything new to add, but generally I haven't been responding because I don't think there's anything new for me to say. casualdejekyll  22:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Have you read:
 * 1) why article should be their (2nd point) 2) websites don't need in-depth coverageArunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read both.
 * To clarify my reasons a little more -
 * "Why article should be their (sic)" - The word you're looking for is "there"
 * 1) This argument is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
 * 2) You've shown none of these "valid references"
 * 3) We're not discussing the quality of the article - we're discussing whether or not the subject of the article should even have an article. There's a difference
 * As per "websites don't need in depth coverage", that is false - see WP:NWEB and GNG - websites are not special and need the same amount of coverage as every other possible article subject to qualify for an article. casualdejekyll  23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To sum it all up in one sentence:
 * As you said, article subjects need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources - and you haven't shown that Youthistaan or People News Chronicle have that. casualdejekyll  23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment casualdejekyll
 * Have you tried reading what’s inside references? I have only picked important sentences from the articles that are published on notable media houses. I would again request you to go through them and then take a final decision now. As it’s been so many days we are here looking for solution. I did my best now I am leaving this topic.Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:e15:e02d:79ea:6397:f0a3:c68d (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC) (Note from DaxServer: This comment is resigned by Arunpawargere)
 * [User:PQR01|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) — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer Please be aware that the author of this article, Arunpawargere, and the account that attempted an out-of-process close, Ritukaapur, are CU-confirmed to one another. I haven't been able to link them back to a sock puppeteer who is blocked on enwiki, but technical logs connect them both to an account that is globally locked for spamming. Make of that what you will... Girth Summit  (blether)  23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Most refs are press releases or interviews with founder. Some have exact wording match to Organization section, so copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sock comments stricken off — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 08:29, 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.