From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

CyberSafar

CyberSafar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for advertising of non notable magazine. If not for the empty, unreferenced claim of being published, this is A7 straight. But better knock it down here, in case it is recreated as was the case for every advert content– Ammarpad ( talk) 08:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

May be a small-scale selling magazine, its listed in notable RS like ′itunes.apple.com′ and ′magzter.com′. As no much info is available about the magazine, only available content, what reliable sources say, are included in the article. Only intention of article's creation is because of encyclopedic interest. Ganeshprasadkp ( talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A mere listing, without any hint of a breath of a suggestion of notability or of sources thereof. It doesn't even list the circulation. -- Calton | Talk 14:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Being "officially registered" is meaningless except possibly as evidence of existence. -- Calton | Talk 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Without legal proof of establishment and circulation details, a magazine cannot be registered in RNI, as per RNI's duties. Ganeshprasadkp ( talk) 04:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do you really understand Wikipedia's concept of " Notability"?. Even though, you've been here for a decade, but your style of defence put question mark on that. – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Dear Ammarpad, As you've mentioned, I created the account a decade ago, but I am editing since only from January 2018. I've provided few reference citaitons like 'itunes.apple.com' and 'magzter.com' in the article. Aren't they reliable sources? | Thank you. Ganeshprasadkp ( talk) 07:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
If business/store sources like itunes.apple.com is what you add in your articles as a reliable source, then there's more problem than this. – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude ( talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Ganeshprasadkp: - hi, sources have to be reliable, 3rd party (not original research (OR) or self-published) and independent. The content has to also not merely be a passing mention - significant coverage is required. I'm about to run though the current sources to see what they're like. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. "CyberSafar - January 2018". magzter.com. - shopping details aren't neutral, and it doesn't give much detail in any case.
  2. "CyberSafar Edumedia". tradeindia.com. - The detail here is so scarce, it's hard to determine whether it can be relied on for the location data.
  3. "CyberSafar". play.google.com. - as with a shop source, the details here wouldn't be reliable, nor is it a significant source.
  4. "Cybersafar Magazine No 2 April 2012". scribd.com. - my translate was playing up with this one - if it's just a copy of the actual magazine, then its worthwhile to have a link to, but can't be relied on as it's OR. If that isn't the case, apologies - I can't read it to check, anyone who can please say.
  5. "ઈ-મેઇલની જરા અંદરની વાત". divyabhaskar.co.in. - I couldn't tell whether this was OR or not - it's a different website, but indicates "Article of Cyber Safar by Himanshu Kikani in Kalash Magazine", suggesting that it is a duplicated piece of work. Can you confirm?
  6. "CyberSafar 4+ Magzter Inc". itunes.apple.com. - Another store/shop etc source and therefore not reliable
  7. "Website and Reviews of CyberSafar Edumedia". grotal.com. - Recruiting company - Not reliable and not a significant source
  8. "IT MAGAZINES/BOOKS". pcpersonalised.com. - very passing mention, just noting it was a possible provider of articles
  9. "Cybersafar Edumedia". startuparena.in. - Some OR provided minimal details in a start-up platform.
  10. "Web Analysis for Cybersafar". cutestat.com. The web bit is OR, but that isn't mentioned in the article so that isn't an issue. However other than noting that Cybersafar exists, it doesn't provide any significant coverage
  11. "Cybersafar Handy Guide Set". clickabooks.com. - Another store link, without any appreciable information in any case
  12. "Registrar of Newspapers for India". rni.nic.in. - broken link. Seeming government list of newspapers publisher/printing addresses. While it could act as a source for that detail(s), not significant independent source for general notability.
  13. "Cybar Safar". newspapers.in. - Again just a confirmation it exists, it doesn't provide any appreciable coverage to indicate that Cyber Safar has sufficient notability for its own article
  14. "CyberSafar Cyber Crime Topics-2016 (Gujarati) Paperback – 2016". amazon.in. - another store link, just demonstrating that they have made a book (worth mentioning though, if you can find a source)
  15. "Cyber Safar". careerage.com/. - Not CS related.
  • Delete* Userfy - The general source quality has been poor, so I also had a look for other potential sources that might work, but nothing beyond a couple of comment mentions came up. I just don't believe it can satisfy sufficient sourcing under Notability (media). Creator is actively engaging - userfy seems logical route Nosebagbear ( talk). 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Ammarpad:, @ Calton: - I'd missed that this article had only been edited by the creator, who is actively participating with us. I've altered my delete to userfy, since if it is going to go that way, it might as well be draftified. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete--There's no point in giving false hopes and wasting our editorial resources at AFC, by a draftification. This topic isn't notable by a mile and will not be notable, in the near future.The sourcing quality is not just poor but it's pretty equivalent to non-sourced stuff.[[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]] and you may spend your efforts elsewhere, at any one of our millions of existing articles. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:48, 28 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CyberSafar&oldid=838772794"