Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Mango 91.9 (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. There is a consensus that this entity narrowly passes WP:BCAST, although substantial work is required to establish an informative non-promotional article. BD2412 T 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mango 91.9[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Also, content is fully promotional in nature WP:PROMOTION. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional in the article shall be removed. Other than that, the station has received some coverage. I also found some reliable sources about the station: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 28 June 2020 (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)} 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All 6 references mentioned by Superastig are seems to be paid/sponsored ones which constitute press releases/pseudo press releases at radioandmusic.com, Emirates 24/7 and exchange4media.com. Again, out of all these references, the number 4 is coming from its parent media group Malayala Manorama which happens to own this radio station in the first place. It's the case of WP:COI and at this time its fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:BCAST until and unless it is proven otherwise by bringing in relevant and credible third-party references. -Hatchens (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail BCAST? It seems to originate its own programming. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in NCORP were tightened significantly in early 2019 and all organizations must have references that are Independent - including containing Independent Content. There is nothing to suggest (and I'm sure isn't the intention of BCAST) that a media company (such as a radio station) can avoid the requirements of NCORP so long as it meets some lesser criteria in BCAST. BCAST is not a replacement for NCORP but has additional guidance. It should also be noted that unlike NCORP, BCAST is not an official set of guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that my question was completely ignored, it has been longstanding Wikipedia practice that broadcasters have cultural significance in ways that NCORP is not designed to address. My question remains, how is BCAST not met? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question wasn't completely ignored but perhaps my answer isn't clear. You are correct that I didn't address BCAST but there was a reason for that. I'm paraphrasing so hopefully I'm not incorrectly describing where you're coming from but your position suggests that BCAST somehow takes precedence over ORGIND when it comes to references. I don't believe that is the case at all. BCAST does not have any official standing and does not take precedence over ORGIND. Therefore, in my opinion, there's no point in looking at BCAST without first ensuring that NCORP has been met (especially wrt references). So if this radio station met the criteria in BCAST (as per Hatchens below) but failed on the references requirement in NCORP, that's still a fail for notability regardless of what BCAST says. You say there is a "longstanding Wikipedia practice" that broadcasters have cultural significance in way that NCORP is not designed to address but if that were the case and have the support of the community, I would expect to see a specific entry in NCORP dealing with this. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 78.26, As per WP:BCAST - "Notability can be established by either a large audience (Fails, No third party reach data available for this radio station), established broadcast history (Fails, as its a very new radio station), or being the originator of some programming (Borderline Pass)" -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference contains "Independent Content" (please see WP:ORGIND) as they all rely on information provided by the company/connected sources. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to non promo Per WP:before The article was updated over the past few years but an older non promo version of article exists. Seems radio station has been around since at least 2008. Older version has sources. See previous afd and related versions. Sources indicate meets GNG. PainProf (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PainProf, Thanks for dropping by. I was expecting your help in this AfD thread. -Hatchens (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that were cited in previous revisions of the article do demonstrate that the station has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The subject passes both WP:BCAST and WP:GNG. Furthermore, any content that could be considered overtly promotional has been removed from the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever you have removed had made this a barebone article. It had no significant third-party coverage earlier (as per WP:SIGCOV), and as of today, it has none either. Kindly feel free to update the article with relevant sources and keep us updated over this discussion thread. -Hatchens (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Gulf News is most certainly WP:SIGCOV and the article in The Hindu, while short, does address Radio Mango directly and in detail, which means it qualifies as SIGCOV as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two editors have referred to the sources cited in the previous revision of the articles above. The previous AfD was dated 2008 and at that time, there were three references. This from MSN (archived copy) contains a single mention-in-passing that the radio station would launch under Phase II, no in-depth information on the company is provided, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from exchange4media (archived copy) is a forward looking statement that the station is "all set to launch" and is clearly based on a PR campaign to generate interest in the new station at the time. Most of the contents of the article are duplicated in this earlier article (archive copy) where it is clear that the information was provided by connected individuals. This reference fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this from Khaleej Times (archived copy) is published by "IANS" which is a newswire. It was not written by an Independent journalist but was written and transmitted on the newswire by the company itself. The article is PR, fails WP:ORGIND. As far as I can determine, none of the earlier versions meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Bludgeon. PainProf (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose and intention of the AfD process is to discuss the merits of each other's arguments. Quoting BLUDGEON (which is an essay, not policy) in a misguided manner in an attempt to shut down *appropriate* discussion (I've pointed out the appropriate policies for organizations and provided an analysis of references that were put forward) is pretty lame and demonstrates to me that you don't understand BLUDGEON. Your time would be better served answering the criticisms - such as the utter lack of references that meet the criteria for notability - rather than shutting down discussion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has about enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also the appropriate particular notability guideline for it would be WP:BCAST and not WP:NCORP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:38, 22 July 2020 (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.