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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AltNews.in[edit]

AltNews.in (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)

Should be fully rewritten, as the majority of the article is a problem for NPOV. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article was in fairly bad shape, but pruning it down to a fairly neutral stub was not difficult: I have now done so. The coverage is fairly substantive, even just in the sources already in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the General Notability guideline and WP:WEB guideline the website was founded on 9 February 2017 and is still at the beginning stage.The newspaper articles do not give substantial coverage of the website .Only Just briefly dwell upon the website About 8 news stories of the website are mentioned but nothing about the website and it does not meet CORP guild line.122.164.253.141 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This IP has zero edits outside this discussion

• Keep BBC is a reliable source as well as The Telegraph. Times of India is main RS for any article that is related to India.--Biografer (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If an article fails WP:NPOV, it should be rewritten or edited, not completely deleted. Pointing out flaws in a national government and having that get international coverage is WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, this Altnews.in website was literally featured in a GQ article a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthebest (talk • contribs)
• The website is not notable. BBC and Telegraph(Calcutta) comments about the India ministry mocked for 'appropriating' Spain border and "Border lights illuminate a Moroccan mockery" NOT ABOUT AltNews.in.IT HAS WRITTEN ONLY 40 ARTICLES SINCE 9 FEB 2017 and Exposés by Altnews have occasionally received coverage in the mainstream media Occasional coverage does not pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB and all coverage is about the story not about the website. It does not get advertisement it is an amateur website. It is just over 6 MONTH OLD WEBSITE 122.174.141.71 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The same above IP

• • We don't look at how old the site is, we look at its notability. If it have substantial coverage, we accept it. That's how Wikipedia works. And putting everything bold or in caps wont get you far in this discussion, since it looks like like you are yelling at your fellow Wikipedians.--Biografer (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we look at it's notability. That's what the user of the IP is saying, that it's not notable. I no longer think it should be deleted. The sources that mention it do so as to look at the website's uniqueness in it's way of writing, which is essentially showcasing people believing fake news and other related articles. They do only have 60 thousand Facebook followers, but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. It should have a page, but the page should be rewritten entirely to make it seem like it's more like a news outlet and less like a group crusading against the evil fake news, which is what it sounds like now. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IP is actually saying both things: 1. Its not notable and 2. Its only six months old (in caps). The second of which, would be better if he hadn't mentioned it, since it caused confusion (on my part at least). As for 60,000 Facebook followers: That is not how we establish notability. but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. - That is exactly what notability is. BBC, The Times of India, CNN, The New York Times, all of them are good sources. I would be careful with HuffPost since its mostly daily newspaper which might contain some gossips, so use it sparingly. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adotchar, have you read the new version of the page? It's substantially different from the one you nominated for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears to have significant coverage. Deleting the article won't solve its neutrality issues, editing the article and working with other users will.VR _talk 11:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for contradictory nomination statement and below reason. The nominator want the article to be rewritten not deleted. He can easily do this or tag it for someone to do. AfD is for article to be deleted not ask for rewriting. Second, this article fairly meet the points of WP:NWEB by being directly subject of discussion in nworld renown media organization like BBC, The Telegraph and Times of India A careful WP:BEFORE whould've prevented this misnomination, almost all (if not all) the sources used are reputable and notable sources and they are not only mentioning the article merely as I have gone through entire contents 6 of them and skimmed the rest. This is very rare combination of source you can find in any AfD. To the nominator, nextime if want article to be rewritten please just tag it with copyedit, AfD is meant only for deletion not 'rewriting' discussion  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally nominated it to be deleted. After a few days, I no longer thought it should be, though it was already nominated and the discussion had started. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Adotchar: that means you no longer want go ahead with deletion discussion?  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have closed it, but AFD guidelines say that you only can if everyone says keep, and you're the nominator. Everyone except the IP thinks the page should be kept. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's clear consensus according to policies and guidelines and you withdraw the nomination since. One IP who never edit outside this AfD and have no strong rationale cannot overturn this consensus.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons provided by User:Biografer and above by User:Ammarpad. The current version since correction by User:Vanamonde93 seems vertical with WP guidelines.Jionakeli (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (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.