Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is that there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaGaLGuY

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

No decent coverage in reliable sources other than a reproduction of a PR-piece, originally published in TOI concerned mainly with it's MBA-school-ranking-list.Hindu Business-Line and Medianama are almost-always typical PR-stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - 3rd time we've had to discuss an article that's been recreated, I recommend deleting it and salting it and the name it was recreated under on the 2nd nomination. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry gang, but just because this this the third nomination doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The first nomination was closed as keep, the second as no consensus. The sources seem to be on pace with what we seek to have for WP:GNG. This third nomination seems to violate WP:FORUMSHOP to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to rebut my arguments but with substance.And, kindly read the policies, you're citing.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly we disagree. Try a little WP:AGF. BTW, WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Look there, I've read it... --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I too learnt from the first time that re-litigating an AfD after around 3 years is forumshopping.AFAIS, WP:CCC is a policy....~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, consensus can change. As I have previously stated, I see no reason for that change. We disagree, that's all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, the word "year" is not present in WP:FORUMSHOP nor is any other time period mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just cleaned up the article and added more sourcing. There is also coverage in the Hindu Business Line [[1]], but mostly for the events already in the article, so no need to WP:DUPCITE. Meets WP:GNG in my opinion. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To clarify: PaGaLGuY.com survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY.com in March 2006 and was kept as "No consensus". It was, however, deleted in July 2006, the deletion log does not make it clear exactly by which DP. The article was re-created eight years later in 2014 under the current title, PaGaLGuY, and it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY as a "keep" in 2015. And a pretty clear "keep" that was. I do not see anything has changed in regards to meeting GNG. Sam Sailor 12:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination was made on the basis of there being no reliable sources - that's no longer true. We now have coverage from The Times of India and the Economic Times, and just enough to meet WP:GNG. Does the nominator want to withdraw the nomination, or do any of the others who voted delete based on the original poor sourcing want to change their votes? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 1, 2, 3, 4. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:00, 19 May 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.