Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parsiana

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parsiana

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

No evidence of notability, as required by WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. In addition, this is so promotional that this article will never be the one to show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a little promotional in places, but to describe it as "so promotional that this article will never be the one to show notability" is a gross exaggeration. In fact this article has now shown notability with the addition of links to a Times of India article about this journal and a Daily News and Analysis article describing it as one of the main periodicals serving the Parsi community. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been shown to be a significant enough publication to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of sources are better for notable. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:25, 2 June 2015 (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.