On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English... this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet! FN
How is it telling? I see one person showing doubts, then another person swamping the discussion with arguments in favour, after which everyone seems to consider the issue resolved. Maybe if Bejnar had not put this material forward or had not been as eloquent, there would have been more baseless discussion, but then again, maybe not.
To be honest, and I hope that you don't take this as criticism of you as the writer, because that's not how it's meant, I don't think losing the article in the way it was would be that bad. It was a two-line stub, with one of the two lines not really relevant to the subject (what Macarenhas was when he founded the magazine is relevant, what he is now, is not) . The worst thing about it might be that a deletion for being non-notable would have harmed the chances of re-creation.
In the end, I don't see how you would like to see this changed, except by dropping any notability criterion we have. As the nominator writes "I couldn't establish that [this] meets WP:NOTABILITY". There is no requirement that notability must be established online, just that it must be established (although he might be blamed for not trying harder - when I do a Google search for '"Goa Today" magazine', the sheer diversity of links would be enough for me to consider it notable). If notability is an issue at all, there is a necessity to establish it when it is in doubt. And yes, that might mean that for some subjects it's easier to do than for others. But to me, the way to handle that kind of 'hard cases' is exactly the way it is done here: Write a message "I could not establish notability of this subject, can one of you?" Perhaps another procedure might be better than the current AfD. But that would just be shaving at the margins.