Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.N.P.C.

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 keep, after extended time for review. bd2412 T 16:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.N.P.C. (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)

trivial article on trivial group; the material I can read does not indicate significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of the article is at best trivial. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to further my argument by saying that there are several unsourced claims in the article and that I cannot verify the reliability of some of the exisiting sources, so as of now my vote is still delete. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which the "several" unsourced claims are. Every single line in the article has a newspaper reference. The only unreferenced one is the Guinness record (I was the one who added the "citation needed" tag there), and that is because it is a stupid claim from the group. How is Guinness going to count comments in a secret group? In spite of this, newspapers have once again claimed this to be an unofficial record (Examples 1 2). It is unfortunate that you say that you cannot verify the reliability of some of the sources. I can understand if you don't speak Malayalam, but surely you at least know that Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi etc. are leading mainstream Malayalam newspapers? -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here are all the newspapers which have had coverage about the group and its troubles with the Police:
  • Malayalam Newspapers of Kerala state: Malayala Manorama (1 2 3), Mathrubhumi (4 5 6), Madhyamam (7 8), Mangalam (9, 10 11), Deshabhimani (12, 13), Kerala Kaumudi (14), Asianet News (15 - tag with a dozen articles), Kairali news (16), News 18 Malayalam (17). That is pretty much every major news outlet. There are many other news items from the same sources and from "lesser" outlets that I have not listed.
  • National news outlets: Deccan Herald (18), The Hindu (19, 20), The New Indian Express (21, 22), Deccan Chronicle (23), Times of India (24, 25). Obviously the number and amount of coverage is less than in the state newspapers, but that is expected. You cannot say that you will only consider English language news sources.

Sure, it is a silly group but that is not the point. When the state excise and police departments of Kerala start investigations against a group and gives it massive news coverage, I believe that gives it notability - I have specified this in the lead now. In any case, deciding notability like that is very subjective. I think the fact that every news outlet of Kerala has covered the group over months and even National newspapers have had coverage (all links shared above are articles specifically about the group) makes it satisfy the general notability guideline -- Raziman T V (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A WP:WEBCRIT pass, as per a source review, from the sources I can read and some that I was able to translate online. Significant coverage in multiple, independent and reliable sources = notability. Subjective personal assessments of the content as "trivial" does not reduce the notability of topics that have received such coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not particularly well written article but lots of material independent RS on this group. The effect of social media in countries with a high level of media supression/control is very interesting; when the local media also report on these sites, you know that something material is happening. Britishfinance (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (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.