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.

Mint (newspaper)[edit]

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. This is evidently a waste of our time. Adding a "spam" tag in the article. I may myself edit it later. (non-admin closure) Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mint (newspaper) (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)

Deceptively well-sourced article with most sources (6 out of the total 12) its owned assets. The only other verifiable articles are the NY Times and Financial Express ones, which mention "Mint" only in passing. While I thought making small changes would be fine, on closer examination, the whole article is written with explicit promotional tones. Hence, delete. (Unsure if this satisfies WP:G11). Nairspecht Converse 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Not the best written article, but a national Indian daily business newspaper that was launched as a co-venture between The Wall Street Journal and the publisher of The Hindustan Times is almost certainly notable and the sort of thing that Wikipedia should cover. Here is coverage of the paper's 2007 launch in The International Herald-Tribune [1] and Advertising Age [2]. The article certainly needs improvement and updating, in particular to cover the 2014 termination of the WSJ involvement, covered for example in the Business Standard. [3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. The sources provided by Arxiloxos allow this to meet GNG and WP:NME (yes, I know it's an essay; useful, though, in this context). The promotional language can be pruned out. The claim of readership also would suggest notability; the source is not independent, but the primary survey it is based on, is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2016 (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.