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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hindu Bulletin

Hindu Bulletin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Claims to be the largest/2nd largest/5th largest/first/most-read/fastest-growing (phew...) in various genres. Well, the website called HinduBulletin exists; but that's about it. No reliable (or even unreliable) sources exist to back the exceptional claims made. The source mentioned within the article is a dead link and almost seems a probably made-up title simply to clear the new page reviewers. Fails notability. Lourdes 05:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Hello The Bushranger, hope you're doing well. Might I request you to, rather than re-listing, consider closing this Afd as per the procedure listed under WP:SOFTDELETE? Warmly, Lourdes 04:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • One relisting is customary for discussions that have had no or little comment, and two is usually done. Only at that point would a WP:SOFTDELETE be customary if there has yet to be any discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the reply The Bushranger. I understand what you're saying. I believe that the February 2017 Rfc and the subsequent addition of the words, "If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD," have modified the procedure that administrators should use to close such Afds. In other words, it is an attempt to minimize the usage of even one re-list. Warmly, Lourdes 01:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I tried the one source offered and got The content you are looking for has been removed on legal advise. No other independent coverage has been identified. DailyVisitors.org indicates more modest traffic figures than the article: Hindubulletin.com has rank 594,727 in the world's top most visited websites ,with an estimated 283 daily visitors per day. : Noyster (talk), 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - may have been a good PROD candidate. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree. The site has an alexa ranking of 1000000 worldwide so not "top 20000" (40000 in india though). Galobtter ( talk) 16:27, 12 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.