Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Qmamu

Currently cited references are also reliable and independent of the article secondary sources. Two of them are recognised news networks and the third one is a government agency responsible for recognising corporates. Of course, more secondary sources shall be looked for and added.

Currently cited references are also reliable and independent of the article secondary sources.
Currently cited references are also reliable and independent of the article secondary sources. Two of them are recognised news networks and the third one is a government agency responsible for recognising corporates. Of course, more secondary sources shall be looked for and added. Anil Prasad 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apletters (talk • contribs)

Be Objective
The enthusiasm of the cool editor who deleted the page made me read the deletion discussions repeatedly. The challenges against the citations made me some good by sending me to research. And I found, challenges on the authenticity of the sources were ,mostly, out of imagination rather than data. For instance on of the citations HansIndia news has 129169 copies of circulation daily! Probably, greater than the population of at least 10 small countries in the world! Study this authentic source http://rni.nic.in/pdf_file/pin2020_21/pin2020_21_eng/Chapter%205.pdf And be more objective next time.

In the meantime, hope, someone will reconsider this deletion. NicShawOxa (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to file a deletion review but you may not edit a closed discussion. Star   Mississippi  13:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)