Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic Media Network

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge‎ to Republic TV. Star Mississippi 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Media Network[edit]

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

Republic Media Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earlier Republic Media Network was redirected to the Republic TV page due to the majority of its information and citations being identical. Moreover, there is a separate category page for Republic Media Network, found under Category:Republic_Media_Network. Currently, this category is entirely adequate, having a separate page is unnecessary. Charlie (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Creating a separate page is unnecessary. Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why? TruxtVerified (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish between categories and articles. A category serves as a grouping mechanism, while an article provides in-depth information. Republic TV, under the operation of Republic Media Network, warrants its own article. Just as with Star channels having their dedicated article like Disney Star and Zee channels like Zee Entertainment Enterprises, these articles comprehensively detail company information, such as funding, ownership, owned channels, and historical context. TruxtVerified (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my concern about the nomination to delete the article on Republic Media Network. It's important to maintain a fair and open discussion, but I believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. The network is a significant part of contemporary media, and it's important to provide accurate and balanced information about it for the readers. Let's ensure that the discussion focuses on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely, TruxtVerified (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, User:TruxtVerified
This article should be kept. It is an important article. 103.170.55.189 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INHERITED, WP:USEFUL. Spinixster (chat!) 11:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic TV: Much of the content is about, and duplicated, with the Republic TV page. What's little left can be merged into there as "sister" properties. Not enough sources to support this as a stand-alone article as they focus mainly on Republic TV or one of the related properties. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your perspective, and it's important to consider that some readers might find value in having a separate page for the Whole Republic TV Network. Additionally, the presence of separate pages for other channels like News18 (Network 18) within their respective networks could be used as a reference point for supporting the existence of this page. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving this article is justified as the reasons provided do not appear to be valid grounds for deletion or merging. It's important to respect the diverse viewpoints that contributors bring to the table. However, it's worth noting that this page focuses on the Republic TV company and its network. @Ravensfire , it might be helpful to understand the distinction between the two articles. This page offers comprehensive information about all the channels within the network, which is consistent with the practice of having separate articles for channels within other networks, such as Network 18. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this article is a duplicate of the Republic TV article. Merging them with a section in that article with the small amount of non-duplicated information retains the information. Duplicating large amounts of text in multiple articles is not helpful from a maintenance perspective and gives a far broader scope to at least one of the articles than it should have. Ravensfire (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To put a bit more behind my thought here. Most of sources focus on Republic TV by name, very few mention Republic Media Network. There were a couple, but closer examination showed they were press-releases disguised as news articles (sponsored / paid articles). Another is Republic World which is deprecated as a source. This needs to be based on sources that have significant coverage of the article subject - Republic Media Network, and are independent from the subject. That's not here. Lost of stuff about Republic TV, hence the merge !vote. Ravensfire (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to maintain a friendly and collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia. Our primary goal is to expand and improve articles, especially those related to India. We are all contributors with a shared interest in enriching the platform's content. Let's remember that constructive discussions and different viewpoints can lead to better articles. @Ravensfire, I understand that we might have differing opinions at times, but our common purpose is to enhance Wikipedia's quality. Let's work together and find common ground on how best to handle the Republic Media Network article. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then start by showing the respect to everyone else. Your lecture is someone disingenuous and suggests that you disagree that I'm editing in good faith. You are incorrect. I realize that you don't see the issues with the article, which is why I expanded my reasoning in the comment above. Notability is established by significant, independent coverage of the article subject. When the sources say "Republic TV", that's what they are covering. This is getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory, my point is made here on the AFD and on the CANVASS. I'll not engage further here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be kept as this is utilizable. The article provides a plethora of information, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia it is good to engender more and more articles, this article is having sources so there is no desideratum to merge it or delete it, Republic TV is different the channel is owned by the company so it is necessary to keep this, readers will find useful to know about the following page.✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zendrago X (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire He just told me to share my opinion, he did not ask me to support his views or protect that article. I want this article to be kept as it is my view. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly he requested this me on my talk page not on any Off-Wiki source. He asked me to express my views so how is this canvassing? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the WP:CANVASS page. Then feel free to discuss on my talk page. But yes, this is textbook canvassing. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not find any canvassing. He did not ask me to oppose the effacement, he invited me and also there was no Textbook Canvassing there in link.
    If you cerebrate I have done erroneous I am yare to abstract my comments as I was not vigilant of WP:CANVASS.
    He just invited me in discussion as I additionally edit these types of topics, I opposed expunction. If he asked me to oppose the effacement then it can be Canvassing, but here in this case it is not (I cerebrate).
    I am yare to abstract my comment if this is not good and is canvassing. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for wanting to keep side discussions on the side. Problem one - TruxtVerified notified one person, you, that they knew would share their viewpoint. Problem two - TruxtVerified used a very non-neutral request and asked for you to support keeping the article. That IS THE DEFINITION of canvassing, even with just one person. A short, neutral request to everyone that had more than a few edits to the Republic TV article (cause there aren't many who edited the RMN article) would have been fine. What TruxtVerified did is not what someone acting in good faith should do. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited the user to share their opinion, and I believe that the article on Republic Media Network should be kept. It provides valuable information about the network and its significance in contemporary media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's important to maintain a diverse range of articles to educate readers. Your contribution to the discussion is appreciated, and your input is valued. Let's continue to focus on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines during this discussion. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I firmly believe that this article should be kept. It serves as an essential resource for readers who seek information about Republic Media Network, a prominent entity in the contemporary media landscape. The article provides a comprehensive overview, detailing aspects such as the network's history, ownership, and its various channels. This information is valuable for users looking to understand the network's role and significance.Wikipedia's purpose is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on a wide range of topics, and the Republic Media Network article aligns with this goal. Rather than merging or deleting it, we should focus on enhancing the article's quality and ensuring it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Let's work together to make this article a valuable resource for all. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good- where are the sources that are specifically about Republic Media Network that aren't press releases / self-published? They aren't there. Where is that significant, independent coverage that Wikipedia uses to show notability of a subject? It's not there. The article is nearly completely about Republic TV. Not this media network. Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire, your impressive track record of over 78,000 edits on Wikipedia reflects your dedication to the platform, and your contributions are greatly valued. It's essential to acknowledge that there are instances of articles with incomplete references on Wikipedia, and addressing them is an ongoing process.In the case of the Republic Media Network article, it's crucial to differentiate between Republic TV and Republic Media Network. While you raise a valid point, it's worth noting that this article pertains to a media company, similar to how Disney Star has its dedicated article. The distinction between the two is an important aspect of the discussion.I genuinely appreciate your insights and your active participation in this discussion. Although we may have differing opinions, let's continue our conversation in a constructive and collaborative manner. My belief is that preserving the Republic Media Network article is the right decision, and I hope we can reach a consensus that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. TruxtVerified | [Message] 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic TV per Ravensfire's reasoning. WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth not in article or above, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  03:02, 7 November 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_Media_Network&oldid=1183953714"