Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pudhari

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Pudhari}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pudhari Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Pudhari}})

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only one source outside of their own website. Waggie (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG as there is coverage in sources like Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra and Kolhapur: a study in urban geography. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

::Could you link to these references? What coverage do they offer? Thank you! Waggie (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

::*Sorry but this is getting ridiculous! Andrew D. spells out two sources and instead of checking them out (which you should have done before) and withdrawing your baseless nomination, you ask him to also link the sources and spell out what is in them. gidonb (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

::*The newspaper is cited as a source in [https://books.google.gr/books?id=pzZuAAAAMAAJ&q=Pudhari&dq=Pudhari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ686Cx5reAhXUE4gKHdjtCIYQ6AEISzAI Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra] but not in Kolhapur: a study in urban geography. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. Sources include [http://www.printweek.in/News/pudhari-chooses-qi-press-controls-automation-21050 Printweek], [https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/once-upon-a-time-a-fiefdom-no-more/story-4qEqBzWJkkhENME20yioXN.html Hindustan Times], [https://books.google.com/books?id=pzZuAAAAMAAJ book1], [https://books.google.com/books?id=LkleAAAAIAAJ book2], [https://scroll.in/article/839619/media-watch-the-marathi-press-skirted-around-irish-prime-minister-elect-leo-varadkars-gay-identity Scroll.in], etc. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|gidonb}}, thanks for linking to those sources. The first is interesting, and does offer some useful coverage that can be summarized for an article but not enough by itself to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA, the second only mentions Pudhari in passing with a quote from the editor (not WP:SIGCOV), the first book reference mentions Pudhari in passing when talking about Judhari, the second book reference only mentions Pudhari once in passing, and the fourth reference only mentions Pudhari's lack of acknowledgement of Varadkar’s sexuality. This does not meet the definition given in WP:SIGCOV. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

:::Actually, the Printweek article is lengthy and entirely about Pudhari. The Hindustan Times has a paragraph about Pudhari history. Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra discusses Pudhari on pages 119 and 120. Indian Journalism on page 249, Scroll.in describes Pudhari as "the third-largest selling newspaper in the state and the leader in Western Maharashtra" and discusses its coverage, and this is just some the sources of course. Very significant coverage and a total failure of WP:BEFORE as the intro says "only one source outside of their own website". Not so. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

::::As I said, the first (the Printweek article) is interesting and provides useful coverage. Not sure why you're up in arms about it. It, by itself, is not enough to establish notability. The others are as I said, passing mentions. The Hindustan Times mentions Pudhari briefly at the beginning and quotes the editor, but then goes on to discuss at length the amount of control the Pawar family has over the region. In fact, nearly half of that paragraph is quoting the editor, which is a primary source and not suitable for establishing notability. Freedom movement in princely states of Maharashtra mentions that Pudhari is one of two surviving newspapers on page 119, and on 120 briefly mentions it's origins and then goes on to discuss Jadhav. Indian journalism: origin, growth and development has a match for "Pudhari", but it's not visible on the screen when I attempt to review. The scroll.in source only mentions that they chose ignore Varadkar’s sexuality, and nothing else. I'm guessing we are interpreting WP:SIGCOV differently. I read "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" as meaning that it has to be more than just a sentence or two in a book with hundreds of pages, or just a passing mention in an article about something else. Thank you for your time and best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

:::::There is no problem with any of the six references in the article, just with claims including in the intro that there is "only one source outside of their own website". It is a well referenced article now. Users are strongly encouraged to look for sources before nominating an article. Referencing oneself always has the preference over letting others do the work. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

::::::Hi {{u|Gidonb}}, thanks for your continued work on the article. This article was a promotional, unsourced mess (with maintenance tags plastered all over it) for years before this nomination, so your efforts are appreciated. I've already commented on the sources that have been presented both here and in the article, some of which I did see in my WP:BEFORE and discounted as not WP:SIGCOV. I"m sorry that we seem to be at loggerheads here. I feel that the sourcing offered now has brought it to the borderline level, but still not quite there. Perhaps it will be kept. If it is, I will not be upset - I'm not here to delete article subjects that the community feels are notable. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Waggie}}, I want to encourage you to move away from the situation where you blindly nominate articles and then have others reference, while constantly providing gratitude, praise or criticism, based on some kind of expertise. Nominating notable newspapers for others to reference or to cleanup articles and this sort of "feedback" are not helpful. Referencing oneself is. Please, instead of more unnecessary feedback, try to do something constructive yourself. You can continue to argue under everyone's opinions, but it will not change anyone's opinions. Doing some work yourself does help. gidonb (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.