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. Michig (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpIndia.com[edit]

OpIndia.com (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)

A PROD tag was removed from this page, hence the nomination here. I am unable to find evidence that this website meets the general threshold for notability. There are passing mentions in some reliable sources, but nothing in depth; the article as it stood before my cleanup relied on self-published sources and twitter. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: the promotional version of the page has been restored by an editor now blocked for disruption. I have no intention of violating 3RR over this issue, and so the promotional version will remain until someone else cares to do something about it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : I disagree with the proposal. The portal is very well known on Social Media, its page ranks are better than some sites from established media. This Proposal for deletions seems like an ideological vandalism to me. — Rajuonline (talk • contribs) 2:14 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)
• Delete There is just a single passing mention in each of the two secondary sources in the article, nor can I find other independent sources that indicate this is notable. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to reliably assert notability. Fish+Karate 09:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable news website with no assertion of significance, no third-party references. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : This seems to be politically motivated deletion request. —  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.177.236 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)GauravonwikiIND (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) —Blocked sock. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : This proposal to delete more of a personal or ideological vendetta than a valid criticism. Opindia is young but a well known digital media portal with a dedicated reader base which is only growing in number. Shaz0224 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC) —Blocked Sock. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a random political website. The page mentions 'achievements' few others than the owner of the site would even notice. No notability, no authority, no credible references from independent sites. Listed in several places among political propaganda publications of India's ruling BJP. 150.242.199.11 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Per nom.No non-trivial covg. about the subject in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]