Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Palace (Dhamdachha)

White Palace (Dhamdachha)

[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)

All sources are fake. All news stories claims to be based in Brussels [1], but they "share" that office with another business, [2] They even share their phone number. The same is true of .vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com and openthenews.com who also all share an office. I suspect that this page was created to de-orphan Shawar Ali, whose biography is also riddled with similar sources. Vexations (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does seem to exist, as this video seems to match the image in the article, as well as the name. But that video confirms to me that this article is just promotionalism. The Allnews source happens to have a picture of Shawar Ali at the bottom, and the website seems to have been created quite recently. And googling turned up nothing useful for pages, so doesn't seem notable either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting the creation and subsequent deletion of White Palace Dhamdachha — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a newly constructed building, despite heritage claims. The offical website is suspiciously silent on any specifics of the building's history. Fails WP:NBUILD. I note their Instagram account has 1.2 million followers, but browsing their numerous five-star one-word Google reviews, I doubt anything can be concluded from that other than a strong desire to promote the building as a location for photo-shoots.----Pontificalibus 10:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article was likely created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Whitepalacegujrat. Sambhil32 my apologies for the sockpuppet assumption. The article is still definitely a Delete. All of the sources are from what appear to be pay-for-coverage sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article and I am not a sockpuppet of any banned user.Sambhil32 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: If you have evidence for that claim, please take it to WP:SPI. ミラ P 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page and I will try adding some reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is not a single reliable source here. this is not a reliable source, it's yet another fake news blackhat SEO site, and should anyone need further proof take a peek at their gallery of "writers" which are all stock images. Every single source here is also owned by the same spam company. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am convinced. I tried my best but I couldn't find any other sources apart from those I already put in the article. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure what is the criteria for building, but there seems to be enough news sources for the building. 157.47.246.112 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has news from several sources, I am not sure how these are fake, 1 2 3 4. There is no point to delete a page for a heritage building that is a major tourist attraction in the city. 157.37.203.163 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is not a single reliable source here. The IP above my comment has provided four sources. First is IBTimes: it is a clear cut puffed peice about the web show, and the subject. Most likely PR/paid for advertiesement of both the web series, and "shooting venue". Second is style.yahoo, at the bottom of the article, it states that the article first appeared at popdiaries. Popdiaries is owned, and handled by one individual. It is a clear cut promotional piece for Zulfi, Munna, and the palace. It also fails as a relaiable source. The third is stateman, it has just a little coverage of the palace, but seems like it was too a puffed up press release for the series, and actors. Fourth is vernamagzine. This has been covered in the nomination. Overall, it looks like the palace, and web series are trying to promote themselves together. In either case, it fails WP:NBUILDING, and it fails general notability criteria by miles. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What does likely paid means? Can you prove or it is just based on perception. Do you think that sources like IBTimes, stateman or any other reliable source won't disclose for paid? Sidtever (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per usernamekiran's careful analysis of the sources presented in this discussion Dartslilly (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:NBUILD with the current coverage from stateman and other reliable sources. We cant say that these are paid articles until they explicitly says that, it totally based on user's perception and if there is a doubt it must definitely go in favor of the creator. Until you cant prove it, there is no point of bringing it. Sidtever (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it as much as you want but the Statesmen is not a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case we need significant coverage that addresses the subject in-depth. The Statesman article merely mentions it in passing in a single sentence.----Pontificalibus 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Statesman (India) was started in 1875 and it is one of the most reliable source with a daily circulation of 180,000 and if any article is paid, they explicitly mentions it on their website and newspaper. Saying it is not a reliable source is an incorrect statement. Statesman and ibm have disclosure for paid media, which clearly means these news articles are not paid. Bejinativity (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statesman is a reliable news source with other sources from IBT, yahoo and a few others. Bejinativity (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]