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 10:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A note on WP:RSN provided no further independent information on this newspaper; I can find no reason to assume this is notable. It is odd for a newspaper that claims a circulation of 66,000 copies to not receive any coverage itself, and the only explanation for that--well, I don't want to speculate. But this is not a notable subject, given the complete lack of coverage, and I'd add that I don't think it's a reliable source either (I know, that's another matter). Buidhe, thank you for chiming in at RSN. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive NCORP failure. A search for references is made difficult with New Europe's own articles appearing in search results. SK2242 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only WP:RS source I can immediately find is [1] a French-language scholarly article with 1-2 sentences about New Europe, not SIGCOV. With the stated circulation and length of history there might well be more independent, reliable sources, but I'm not finding them. If they can't be found I agree the article should be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm struggling to find sources that establish GNG (apart from Buidehe's source above, all I can find is [2]), but it's very possible they exist. "New Europe" has so many red herring results that it's hard to sort through the chaffe. IAR, I'm hesitant to delete. 150,000 online readers and 60,000 print subscribers is a substantial readership and 1993 is a decent history. This is a good case of a publication that appears to meet WP:NMEDIA criteria 3, are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (the EU), or criteria 5, are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets (people interested in the EU). ((u|Sdkb))talk 05:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that I don't think either of these sources establish either criteria 3 or 5. I've seen no evidence that this is a RS source let alone "authoritative". And I don't know how to judge if a publication is "significant" except RS coverage. New Europe isn't even on the list[3] of media frequently followed by MEPs. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sdkb, Buidhe hits the nail on the head. The basic facts can't even be established reliably. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find one story in Turkish [4] and a profile by Media Bias Fact Check, which is considered to be unreliable.[5]Fences&Windows 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I checked the Turkish story (from 2009) and it seems to be pushing a conspiracy that US wants a military coup to happen in Turkey. When a coup actually was attempted (in 2016), the US condemned it. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 15 February 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.