Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DU Times

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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DU Times

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

Unofficial student news blog, one of several at the university, with no indication of notability per WP:WEB. I can't find any mention of it online in WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of failing to state significance other than to pinpoint its own existence, and because its sole reference is just the University. So advertise-like.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are new editions which seems a good ones like not for promotion and and a new source is offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.227.82 (talk • contribs)

Comment: refactoring other editors' posts, and attempting to add a fake signature, as you did with these edits, does not help you make your case here. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor will removing the AFD template from the top of the article [1], nor will repeatedly changing the author credits in the reference [2], [3], [4], in a rather shabby attempt at hiding your name and the clear WP:Conflict of interest as the article's creator, nor will attempting to hijack your rival paper's article to redirect Wikipedia readers to your website [5], nor will deleting referenced content from your rival paper's article with a lame rationale like "was obsolete info" [6]. Please stop all this nonsense: it makes it look like promoting your website is the only reason you're editing here: Special:Contributions/14.139.227.82, Special:Contributions/Assefme. Please also read WP:Multiple accounts, and note that deliberate WP:Sock puppetry will get you blocked from editing, and will make your comments here more likely to be ignored, and will make this article more likely to be deleted. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this news website is notable for its radical steps in university refrences have been added by me they are collaborating with other groups to work for abetter education system— Preceding assefme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assefme (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Assefme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

alright bro see I have stopped it all now i hage stated my case you can lokk through, I acxept all the mischief and apologise fr tye same and I wish to not to repeat anything as such again. assefme

delete no sign of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavnck (talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No offense meant to this well-meaning student publication or to the students who work on it. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and we have to have criteria for what subjects can be covered here. The criteria are explained at WP:GNG. This news site has not received coverage from Independent Reliable Sources and so it does not qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2015 (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.