Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman Kural[edit]

Andaman Kural (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:ORGCRIT. No indication why this newspaper is notable and deserves an article. It is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:MILL. DBigXray 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the main Tamil language publication of the archipelago, at least in earlier period. There are about 50,000 Tamil speakers in the Union Territory, so having a circulation of 4,500 (each newspaper is read by more than 1 person in most cases) means that the publication reaches a major share of the Tamil community. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
    Soman, still fails WP:ORGCRIT. You are giving statistical juggling without a link to back up your numbers, while the requirement here is of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.--DBigXray 11:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful, well-sourced and encyclopedic. The fact that it does not qualify for a presumption of notability under certain guidelines is not itself grounds for removing such facially encyclopedic material, particularly when the article clearly embodies the hard work of many editors over an extended period. Also, tangentially, WP:MILL is one of the most shockingly anti-wiki essays I've had the misfortune to read. -- Visviva (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Visviva I am sure you don't mean that all newspapers are notable. I could not find the coverage that merits a pass of WP:NORG. It is possible that I may have missed something, Please post the links that led you to vote keep. If they are indeed convincing I may offer to withdraw the AfD. DBigXray 07:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently passé to suggest that people on AfD should read the policies they cite. But if you were to do so, you would note that WP:N (and its various specialized guidelines) is not about whether a topic should be covered at all, but whether it should be covered in a freestanding article rather than in an article about some superordinate topic, e.g. Newspapers of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (article does not exist). Perhaps such a merge would be warranted in this case, but I think that's a question that editors with local expertise can tackle, and it doesn't require any form of deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns about WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGE. In any case links that support the notability are expected from AFD participants and it is still sorely lacking. DBigXray 08:07, 13 February 2020 (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.