Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat

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. $Salvio$ 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahdat

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newspaper Wahdat is not notable, no media links found, no references in Google News hence it is not passing WP:GNG. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination. @Memon KutianaWala: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entirety of the page is unreferenced and the vast majority of the text was added by an obvious COI editor. the last version prior to the COI edit shows an unreferenced stub and there is no evidence in the article or in searches of significant and independent coverage. The only independent coverage I have located, in fact, is passing mentions to the participation of this paper in the All Pakistan Newspapers Society. So there is independent verification that WP:ITEXISTS but that is not enough to signify notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Eggishorn: nominator of this AfD is apparently on reckless deletion spree. This is a notable newspaper and pass WP:NMEDIA. "The “Daily Wahdat” from Peshawar are full-fledged Pashto newspapers which have been serving the Pashto language for a long time.". There's more in G'books. --Saqib (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, that reference, like the ones I already mentioned and others that are available in GBooks and GNews, is only a passing reference to establish existence. Notability requires more than simple one-sentence summaries. Thank you for the ping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) edited to add: And, just for the record, I don't consider fifteen nominations in 11 months a "reckless deletion spree". I suggest that a review of WP:NPA might be in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: WP:NMEDIA states Notability is presumed for newspapers, (1) if have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history, (2) are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets, (3) are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. This newspaper meets all these criteria easily. I still feel the nominator of this AfD is on deletion spree. The reason if he himself has been creating BLPs on non-notable figures (Misbah Mumtaz, Bin Swelah) yet marking BLPs on notable subjects (Iffat Rahim) for deletion. Doesn't sounds strange to you? --Saqib (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, please provide any evidence that you are aware of that justifies this paper meeting those criteria. At the present time, neither the article itself nor this AfD discussion have produced any evidence of meeting those criteria. Simple assertions of passing NMEDIA are not enough. Also, I will put this more clearly: stating that another editor is on a "deletion spree" despite having been pointed out that a very, very low number of deletion nominations have been made is grounds for blocking under WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Please do not do this again or continue to attempt justifying this statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: This newspaper was founded in 1976 which means criteria # 2 of WP:NMEDIA is met. Secondly, Pakistan's reputable daily Dawn (newspaper) cites Daily Wahdat as a source (links below) which means criteria #3 and # 4 are met.--Saqib (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, the mere existence of a media outlet for 44 years in no way demonstrates that it satisfies: "historic purpose or ...a significant history". The mere reprinting of stories in another outlet is likewise neither evidence of being "...considered by reliable sources to be authoritative..." nor being "...frequently cited by other reliable sources." You need to stop treating NMEDIA as a checklist to be met by whatever weak evidence and bland assertions you can muster and instead read the entire notability standard. At the very top it states: This page is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; ...A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Even the Criteria section that you keep referring to states: ...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included. It is especially glaring that in trying to meet the criterion of "frequently cited" you produced only three simple reprints. I suggest that instead of trying to argue here it would be more useful to the project and your goal of saving this article to improve the article from its current state. If you can find the sources to provide a thorough rewrite (i.e., WP:HEYMANN) that will go much farther to arguing for a Keep than anything you've yet said here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now the promotional puffery and unsourced content has all been removed, there's nothing left other than "It's a newspaper". The article contains no sources other than the newspaper's official site. I can't find any significant coverage, other than pages simply saying it exists and is a newspaper/e-newspaper, so I'm not seeing enough for notability. That's searching for "wahdat newspaper" in English, and if anyone can unearth any other language sources I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.