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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youlin Magazine[edit]

Youlin Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There's nothing sig/in-depth as required by WP:GNG. It's more of a promotional article relying on press releases styled coverage. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, News media, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT I am asking the deletion nominator Saqib to give some credibility to the editorial staffs at Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune newspaper that they found this magazine worthy of their news coverage. There are 3 existing references by them at this article. More coverage and more sources can be found I am sure, if we try. For people that are not familiar with Youlin Magazine, it's a 'Pakistani and Chinese cultural monthly online magazine'. As Wikipedia editors, many people like me have been using it for several years now and find it very useful...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your statement gives off a vibe of WP:ILIKEIT. Merely having coverage in WP:RS doesn't automatically mean this online magazine is WP:N. We need sig/in-depth coverage that also meets WP:SIRS. The current sourcing can back up claims for WP:V, but it's not sufficient to establish WP:N. If you reckon there's solid coverage like that, you gotta lay it down right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to argue WP:ILIKEIT and you don't. I feel there is no need for anybody to 'lay it down here' at the AfD Forum, some of it is already there at the article for everybody to see. Yes, the article can use some improvement, I admit. Besides myself, I'll let the Wikipedia community decide whether this article is worth saving or not?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly checked the references already in the article and since they were not good enough to meet WP:GNG, I put this up for deletion. So now, you or anyone else has gotta come up with coverage that passes WP:SIRS right here which can help establish WP:N. Don't just say there are sources out there somewhere, show us by giving them. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as pointed out above by User:Ngrewal1, User:Saqib has been doubtful regarding WP:Notability when it comes to Dawn (Newspaper), The Express tribune and The Nation (newspaper) as he has declined my Draft:Gumn despite it clearly meets WP:GNG. Weird, how no one is questioning his actions?182.182.97.3 (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think someone warned you before to avoid WP:PA. Why don't you stick to the topic and chat about the issue, not about each other, yeah? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But I'll voice my thoughts, that's my opinion. I guess Wikipedia supports WP:COI. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: This IP has finally admitted that they have no awareness about WP:RS, which I interpret as having no experience with what WP:RS entails. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I said, I was unaware but after discussion at Draft talk:Gumn, I got the understanding. Don't fit in discussion from other context here. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just admit you're not familiar with WP:RS because at-least three of your recent drafts (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft:Gumn and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) have been turned down by other reviewers for using non-RS to create articles on unwarranted subjects. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: IP blocked. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Search engine results do not show sources that discusses the subject in detail and sources used in the article does not pass the general notability guidelines. Toadette^Edit! 14:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep efforts seem to be part of a good ol' sockfarm, in addition to the args of ToadetteEdit. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough good sources with in-depth coverage to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough significant coverage quoted in the article to show it's a notable periodical. If REALLY judged insufficient, various ATD should be considered including a merge into China-Pakistan relations. Also see: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/931643.shtml ; https://www.kjis.org/journal/view.html?uid=281&&vmd=Full for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mushy Yank, You provided two sources, but both of them only name checks this magazine. Where's the sig/in-depth coverage required by GNG? The articles cites this and this press release - all ROTM coverage. While this is based on an interview of the magazine edito so I don't see anything sig/in-depth enough for establishing WP:N or GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment because I am not sure whether you criticise the sources, their notability or reliability, or the magazine, its notability or reliability, the coverage it received or lack thereof, the possibility of an ATD, the discrepancies between a secondary source and what you think is the reality of the agenda/style of the magazine. So I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mushy Yank, Sorry, I got a bit confused there. I've gone back and revised the comment now. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: if you edit your comment after my reply without any visible sign of doing so, then it's very hard for other users to understand what I meant. But never mind, l'll leave it at that anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, no worries, thanks for the note. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mushy Yank, Honestly, I haven't slept well last night, so my mind's only half working. I thought I was at RSN for a moment there.—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above. Okmrman (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (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.