Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apherald

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apherald

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability, no reference, source, and a recreation of a previous speedy deletion Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is referenced, but there is no demonstration of notability and it looks promotional to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having been deleted once before, it falls under category g4 for speedy deletion and needs to be removed. The material needs to be readdressed and rewritten in acceptable format and usage for inclusion. Ren99 (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply for speedy deletions, only AfD deletions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam (though I removed all of the SEO links). Various accounts are spamming links to the website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why should this be deleted? is it not okay to explain about one of the emerging media house in Telugu land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by శ్రీజ (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being considered for deletion because it does not establish why the web site is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources and no evidence of notability. I have serious doubts whether it is really an online press as claimed in the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:14, 26 July 2012 (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.