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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Aanchal[edit]

Monthly Aanchal (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)

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Störm (talk · contribs), seemingly previously known as Greenbörg, never googles before adding an AfD, at some point this charade needs to stop. Regarding Aanchal, "The reading needs of the modern woman were fulfilled by the digests, seven of which (Pakeezah, Dosheezah, Khawateen Digest, Hina Digest, Kiran, Anchal and Angan) are on the top of the readership list." ([1]), "There are over a dozen monthly publications for women today: Hoor, Kiran, Anchal, Khawateen Digest and Pakeeza being some of the major ones." ([2]) --Soman (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with what I said above after doing necessary checks. Nothing in my Google search ([3]) and ([4]) so thats why I said 'nothing'. If we accept your source (which looks vanity) then it only verifies subject but need more diverse coverage to pass WP:GNG. I changed my user name to hide my identity but you are trying to reveal the identity which you should stop. If you want to target me then please find better way or talk to me directly rather indirectly. Störm (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are newspapers which were prominent in the 1990s. They had a significant circulation as Soman noted, so it is not necessary to have current prominence to be notable. Per lack of WP:BEFORE, I agree for a snow keep. Mar4d (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Passing mention in books don't establish notability. I don't see proof of significance, either through circulation, or impact. (Also, "Monthly Aanchal" =/= "Anchal" which the sources mention).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 28 November 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.