Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Journal
- 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. Sandstein 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Metro Journal
- Metro Journal (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)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, effectively unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- [No comment on notability at this time]. If this is not notable, it should be redirected to Metro#Periodicals or a similar target. A newspaper is not an organisation, it is a periodical publication. The relevant guidelines, essays, standards and indicators for periodicals include GNG, NJOURNAL, NMEDIA, NBOOK, circulation and so on. "Unsourced" should not be applied to an article merely because lacks independent sources. That isn't what the word means. The ISSN in this article appears to actually refer to an Oklahoma publication with the same name. The Malayan name (when copied from this article where it shows up as a series of black squares on my device) brings up nothing in Google, including GBooks, GScholar, GNews. "MicNode News" brings up nothing in GBooks or GNews. It does have something in Crunchbase where it is described as a "micro news" outlet
(not a good sign in relation to notability).The involvement of the speaker of the state legislature would be a point in favour of this article if it could be verified. "Metro Journal" brings up a lot of background noise in searches due to similarly named publications and is difficult to search. If this publication is not notable, I think that a redirect (possibly without merge) to a list of, or to one of, the other 'Metros' (they tend to be very high circulation newspapers/periodicals distributed on public transport; I'm not sure if they are all connected, though at least some of them are from Metro International; bear in mind also that newspapers can be correctly called "journals" [1]), or perhaps a disambiguation page or list, would be the correct outcome. We will want this page name per ATD and R, if only as a redirect to our disambiguation page Metro#Periodicals. James500 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Comment modified. James500 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It is a genuine newspapaper and is notable. It is worth noting that WP:AFD isn't the place to take an article, simply because it lacks source. I did the initial work to check whether the paper was genuine. It is. it is listed on the India State legislature website, as a Indian newspaper, and is licenced accordingly. As regards the ISSN number, I don't think it has a location element. Although the French maintain the ISSN system, I think you can request an ISSN at any large regional library, like a US state library, so I took it as read, that some backers who set the paper up, were based in Oklahoma US, and they requsted it there. James500 Did you check they Malayalam language version of Google. Google is very good at English and other western language search, but not so good at India sub languages, in the Malayalam language. Please do the work and find government listing. scope_creep (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a Malayalam language version of Google. Is this it? If so, my (old and not very powerful) browser won't load it. It keeps choking on the page. Someone else will have to look. I've modified by comment to make it clear I am not commenting on notability. James500 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly, it was a while ago. You can tell Google search, to search in the base language, and return the results as English, so is doing on the fly translation. Although I think your right. I think the normal Google Indian one will cover the language at www.google.co.in If you cant find, I'll do it. We will need a source anyway to save it from future Afd's, if it doesn't get Afd'd here. I'll do a search on Monday. scope_creep (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a Malayalam language version of Google. Is this it? If so, my (old and not very powerful) browser won't load it. It keeps choking on the page. Someone else will have to look. I've modified by comment to make it clear I am not commenting on notability. James500 (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I see no claim of notability and as it stands it is borderline promotional, consisting mainly of an announcement of the paper's new website. Deb (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete for lacking notability. The article contains very few sources, either in English or in Malayalam. Possibly out of laziness; probably because there's nothing really out there. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Your not doing the work. It it officially registered as an Indian newspaper serving Malayalam folk, which is clearly displayed on the India government website as being licenced. It is clearly notable. WP:Afd is not the place to send article that don't have references. There is over 200k articles that don't sources including 1500+ biographies. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- And what are we supposed to do with (or on account of) the many non-sourced articles? I say, keep working towards eliminating them. And, importantly, not using them as an argument for keeping other bad stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Gnome, clearly nobody is willing to spend the time and actually conduct a sufficiently deep search, using Google India, to find and verify sources, of which I'm sure there will be dozens, as the paper is well established, and officially licenced by the Indian government to operate. I suspect the language and people of Kerala are not particuly well by served google.com, and it takes more than a few second of work to find information from there. But having no sources is not a deletion criteria. The whole premise of this Afd is broken as WP:CORPDEPTH is NOT a notabilty criteria for newspapers and lack of sources is NOT a reason for flagging for deletion via WP:AFD. It was a new website, as with most newspapers these days, it has moved from print and ink into the digial domain. scope_creep (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. Two comments: One, I happen to believe that the various versions of Wikipedia across languages are bound to differ significantly in terms of what's in it, of how extensive the text is, and what the cultural and other references are (including the sources, of course). So, although we're bound to have the same text, or thereabouts, about a mathematics or physics subject, we might have in English articles that do not even exist in the Arabic version, and vice versa.
- Two, about this particular AfD, it may have been indeed introduced on the basis of WP:CORPDEPTH, but all the comments are immediately about notability! (Proud of my Wiki colleagues, etc.) So was mine. At the end of the day, is the subject of the contested article notable enough per sources? I believe it isn't, as far as English-language sources are concerned, and, since I do not have access to other-language sources, I see no place for the article here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Gnome, clearly nobody is willing to spend the time and actually conduct a sufficiently deep search, using Google India, to find and verify sources, of which I'm sure there will be dozens, as the paper is well established, and officially licenced by the Indian government to operate. I suspect the language and people of Kerala are not particuly well by served google.com, and it takes more than a few second of work to find information from there. But having no sources is not a deletion criteria. The whole premise of this Afd is broken as WP:CORPDEPTH is NOT a notabilty criteria for newspapers and lack of sources is NOT a reason for flagging for deletion via WP:AFD. It was a new website, as with most newspapers these days, it has moved from print and ink into the digial domain. scope_creep (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- And what are we supposed to do with (or on account of) the many non-sourced articles? I say, keep working towards eliminating them. And, importantly, not using them as an argument for keeping other bad stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Your not doing the work. It it officially registered as an Indian newspaper serving Malayalam folk, which is clearly displayed on the India government website as being licenced. It is clearly notable. WP:Afd is not the place to send article that don't have references. There is over 200k articles that don't sources including 1500+ biographies. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable being sourced only with one primary source that does not advance notability. On a search the first thing at the top of the list was the Metro Journal ----- of Canada. Otr500 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't get you. That is a French national daily newspaper your looking at. The paper I want to keep, is a digital paper that server a small indigenousness population of 20million or so Malayalam speaking folks in the Indian state of Kerala. Unlike India, France is well served by Google. scope_creep (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto: as I don't get you. There are processes in place to argue changing policy. With your opinion we could have an article on "everything Earth" that has a primary website. Maybe The Indian Wikipedia has different policies and guidelines as I see you have over six times the edit count that I do. It would seem you would know this but maybe even Wikipedia is different in India. All I know, 20 million population or 100 million, is that I can not find sources to confirm the primary source as notable. Otr500 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- How long did you take to do the search, and I've never mentioned the India Wikipedia. I have no idea whats on it. Nor an I arguing for changing policy. There is over 200,000 articles, some on major subjects that dont have references, because the time hasnt been available to do it. That doesnt make them Afd material. Did you take more than two hours to do the search? scope_creep (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can't help it if other stuff exists. The other 199,999 articles will have to wait their turn. I am sorry but I was having trouble typing while laughing so hard. I did try to remember where it was in the policies or guidelines to perform a two hour search for sources before nominating or participating in an AFD. You appear to be advancing that the subject is notable even without the required sourcing. The condition of an article does not determine notability but we can only make that determination according to what we can find. It could be too soon but someone stole the Wikipedia crystal ball. All unsourced or undersourced articles are candidates for AFD if a BEFORE search fails to find notability. However, this AFD is concerning this subject and I did not find sourcing to advance notability. Here is a thought: Why don't you search for two hours or one more day, and add sources to the article, other than the Indian government, that will provide evidence of notability instead of just advocating it is notable? FYI-- have you heard about DUCK? Asserting that there is still notability "out there" somewhere in the Universe, regardless of an inability of other editors to find it, is acually contrary to policies and guidelines.
- So I'm trying to save an article for Wikipedia, to enrich it a wee bit and your laughing at me. Clearly you have decided to abandon good sense, WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. We'll see what Ani says about it. I think DUCK is an essay and not a policy, and is targeted at filing editor level and those who are abusive users, and is specific to SPI, COI and Copyright abuse, and has nothing to do with article construction in general, and nothing to do with reference generation. I did the BEFORE search and found the source that states it is a licenced newspaper that enabled the article to be moved from Afc draft into mainspace, and I'm satisfied that makes the newspaper notable, otherwise it would be a blog. I figured some Indian or Malayalam speaking editor would have found several more by now, but it is a very poor region and I suspect editor coverage is slim. If did a BEFORE search, and I'm satisified. You have said you havent done a deep search, so why vote in the Afd in the first place, if you are unwilling to put the time in to establish a source. I would suggest avoiding WP:AFD in the future, if your not willing or capable of doing the work, when it needs to get busy. scope_creep (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't laughing at anyone but on a really serious note: You (not me or other editors) save the article. You have not linked to one source that I (or others) can check (WP:VERIFY) that might advance notability. From my point of view "you" are trying to command that "we" search for sourcing. I did search and found a "lack of sourcing" to advance notability. "IF" you have found sources pray tell where they are? We need "sources" (plural) to save the article from this AFD ---and any in the future that would surely happen. Otr500 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- So I'm trying to save an article for Wikipedia, to enrich it a wee bit and your laughing at me. Clearly you have decided to abandon good sense, WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. We'll see what Ani says about it. I think DUCK is an essay and not a policy, and is targeted at filing editor level and those who are abusive users, and is specific to SPI, COI and Copyright abuse, and has nothing to do with article construction in general, and nothing to do with reference generation. I did the BEFORE search and found the source that states it is a licenced newspaper that enabled the article to be moved from Afc draft into mainspace, and I'm satisfied that makes the newspaper notable, otherwise it would be a blog. I figured some Indian or Malayalam speaking editor would have found several more by now, but it is a very poor region and I suspect editor coverage is slim. If did a BEFORE search, and I'm satisified. You have said you havent done a deep search, so why vote in the Afd in the first place, if you are unwilling to put the time in to establish a source. I would suggest avoiding WP:AFD in the future, if your not willing or capable of doing the work, when it needs to get busy. scope_creep (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can't help it if other stuff exists. The other 199,999 articles will have to wait their turn. I am sorry but I was having trouble typing while laughing so hard. I did try to remember where it was in the policies or guidelines to perform a two hour search for sources before nominating or participating in an AFD. You appear to be advancing that the subject is notable even without the required sourcing. The condition of an article does not determine notability but we can only make that determination according to what we can find. It could be too soon but someone stole the Wikipedia crystal ball. All unsourced or undersourced articles are candidates for AFD if a BEFORE search fails to find notability. However, this AFD is concerning this subject and I did not find sourcing to advance notability. Here is a thought: Why don't you search for two hours or one more day, and add sources to the article, other than the Indian government, that will provide evidence of notability instead of just advocating it is notable? FYI-- have you heard about DUCK? Asserting that there is still notability "out there" somewhere in the Universe, regardless of an inability of other editors to find it, is acually contrary to policies and guidelines.
- How long did you take to do the search, and I've never mentioned the India Wikipedia. I have no idea whats on it. Nor an I arguing for changing policy. There is over 200,000 articles, some on major subjects that dont have references, because the time hasnt been available to do it. That doesnt make them Afd material. Did you take more than two hours to do the search? scope_creep (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto: as I don't get you. There are processes in place to argue changing policy. With your opinion we could have an article on "everything Earth" that has a primary website. Maybe The Indian Wikipedia has different policies and guidelines as I see you have over six times the edit count that I do. It would seem you would know this but maybe even Wikipedia is different in India. All I know, 20 million population or 100 million, is that I can not find sources to confirm the primary source as notable. Otr500 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't get you. That is a French national daily newspaper your looking at. The paper I want to keep, is a digital paper that server a small indigenousness population of 20million or so Malayalam speaking folks in the Indian state of Kerala. Unlike India, France is well served by Google. scope_creep (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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.