Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcontinental Times

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental Times

[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)

Non notable news company. My BEFORE didn't help me finding any good coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted because, this is an international registered European media house, internet media based out of Spain. Also, this page has everything notable and enough reference sources, some from top Spanish publication amd few from Indian portals. Please check it thoroughly, if you have good knowledge in the same field and then take the final decision. I have done hard work to create this page. We are covering unbiased global news coverages and Interviews.

With due respect i would like someone to help me out with this and if you need more references, then let me know. You can put citations need tag but don't delete for no valid reason.

~~vishalttplayer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalttplayer (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete ironically, a blackhat SEO site (ie. one which mirrors legitimate journalism but is not in fact a real media outlet) and sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO itself. CUPIDICAE💕 13:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I were reviewing this as a draft, I would decline it as saying only what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say. Article does not indicate third-party coverage; I have not searched for third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP Devoke water 11:22, 18 March 2021 (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.