Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music India

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 no consensus. Could also have been keep but with as little input as provided here one cannot really establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music India[edit]

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

WP:ENN, and I'm not sure that the one source that's not from the company is RS - I went to the about page, and it was blank. The name is so generic as to make it difficult to find sources. WP:BROADCAST indicates Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources..., but even the company's website fails to give any of the information in the article, so I'm not sure WP:V is met for WP:BROADCAST to be applicable. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In certain cases, as you know existence does equal notability. WP:BROADCAST tells us that "Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." As this music channel is not only national but was for a time international -- and notability is not temporary -- I daresay WP:BROADCAST applies. Keep. And as I've said before here (not to you) a bare link to an essay (as opposed to actual policy) doesn't make for a strong case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I felt it was somewhat obvious in this case. There's more to it, though, so I will amend. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better argument but I would still say that the 2nd ref, the BizAsia one, verifies sufficiently that it does exist -- and that for several years was carried by Sky in the UK, too. We don't need the "company's website" to convey this info -- we have a news cite that does that, better. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 August 2016 (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.