Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaj Samaj

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 speedy keep. Some sources found, possible copyvio removed. (non-admin closure) GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Samaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No credible indication of notability. Article sources are only list entries and passing mentions from affiliated sources. No independent in-depth coverage found via Google. Also, the article is plagiarized from their "About" page here, or they copied the Wikipedia article to create their "About" page (either way, not a good sign). GermanJoe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw (as nom) - additional sources show some notability. Possible copyvio has been removed. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, daily newspaper of a major news outlet, see http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/india/20091220/1409698.html , http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/media-practice/who-needs-paid-news-5714 , http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-05/news/47049531_1_indian-readership-survey-mruc-indian-newspaper-society . Was one of Haryana's top 10 daily newspapers in 2011, with 109,000 circulation, (‘Aaj Samaj’ which made an entry to the top 10 dailies in the previous round of survey, has lost a few readers in the state. Its current AIR stands at 1.03 lakh as compared to 1.09 lakh in IRS Q1 2011 and 40,000 in IRS Q2 2010.) --Soman (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding those sources (I looked, but didn't see them). I have added the URLs as external links for now, in case someone wants to use them for further improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Soman (talk · contribs)'s sources, which provide significant coverage of the subject. I have rewritten the article so that there are no copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (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.