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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Hindi Mail (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)

Non-notable newspaper. The article appears to have been created by the founder of the paper as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234:: The article is created by a neutral person who want to be a Wikipedian for Media and Olympian. MyeraMishra (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book source is dead and the rest are good as external links. Notability is not established.--Biografer (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: Can I know the book source you are referring to? link: Google Books - this seems to be working. MyeraMishra (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder why this page nominated for deletions even after so many citations. MyeraMishra (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rashtriya Hindi Mail has the citations from Registrar of Newspapers, Director of Advertising and Publicity, Madhya Pradesh Public Relations, sebi.gov.in, which are government bodies, are considered to be reliable sources for any media/newspaper.

As per the "Compiled & Edited by Research, Reference and Training Division - National Documentation Centre on Mass Communication - 2016" is latest document published from National Documentation Centre on Mass Communication on Mass communications; and this is in the mass communications from the year 1997 as per books MyeraMishra (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Author clearly has ties to the subject, and the refs should speak for themselves...TJH2018talk 18:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't know which of you deleted my post here and for what reason, just an fyi.--Biografer (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the @TJH2018: comment; While I do agree that its a definite WP:COI, nominating article for deletion, is not right basing solely on that. On the other hand, because it only contains promotional sources (and there are no official independent sources), this article should be deleted.

I'm sorry @MyeraMishra:, but even a book cite wont save this article from being deleted. One source is not enough. We need not only official sources, we also need them to be independent of the subject. For example, if there is an article in Times of India or The Hindu that describes this newspaper, we can use that.--Biografer (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for some unknown to me reason (and thank god I looked into AfD template), @Sportsfan 1234: the result was already printed as keep as of December 2, 2017, although no verdict was reached. With that in mind, I removed the result and left it blank. Feel free to make any changes to it if you find that I did it wrong.--Biografer (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As when I accepted this draft was not aware that the person writing it have any ties with subject (I should do more investigation), but now it is clear that the person have ties and isn't disclosing his conflict of interest also, so it should be example for paid editors. References also are not that reliable as they should be. So my opinion is delete. Thanks! ·•·1997kB 09:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to re-iterate that I do not have any direct relations with the subject. I am here to learn, contribute and provide reliable references to support the article I publish as @Biografer: mentioned. I have updated the article further by providing the references from The_Tribune_(Chandigarh) dated back on 7 December 1998 ^[1] MyeraMishra (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to the WikiAdmins to decide if the article is worthy enough to keep or not. MyeraMishra (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that MyeraMishra originally authored this article under a sockpuppet name associated with the subject (that username has been changed). Both usernames are now indef-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an admin, but my 2 cents here is this: It doesn't matter how many sources you provide, what matters is what's in them. Also, @MyeraMishra:, Wikipedia can't be used as a ref. ;)--Biografer (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sportsfan1234 HindWiki^Connect 00:16, 9 December 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.