Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Rakshak

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 05:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Bharat Rakshak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bharat Rakshak (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)

Fails WP:NWEB and/or WP:NORG. ∯WBG^converse 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: per nomination, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:NWEB.[1][2][3][4] This nomination appears to be more than simply a mistake. Rzvas (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  Rzvas, calm down your rhetoric, a bit. I appreciate your enthusiasm but it's always possible to engage other editors without resorting to snide remarks.

  The first point of WP:NWEB states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works.

  Do you assume that mere mentions of some of their (reports)/(other content that they hold) in the bibliography and/or end-notes section of a published book, means that the website itself has been the subject of the work? ∯WBG^converse 17:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep clearly Meets WP:NWEB, since the site itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. the site has got coverage and has been discussed at NDTV, Doordarshan and a long list of print media The Hindu, Times of India, The Financial Express see the links (Dont forget to Scroll Down) at [5] and its about us page. Apart from the SIGCOV, several reliable sources source its content from this site, eg. BBC [6][7]deccan chronicle[8][9]. Looks like WP:BEFORE was lacking. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per DBigXray. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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.