The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. There are additional sources that can be added. You can also build a great article using passing mentions with support from more significant coverage. Let's try improving the article, discussing it on the talk page, and feel free to re-nominate if you're losing sleep that this subject does not merit inclusion. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The subject is merely social media slang, used by a certain group of people and some unreliable so-called "online news outlets", which were created a few years ago. The majority of the refs used are WP:QS do not pass WP:RS. Last but not least, the subject clearly fails WP:N. LearnIndology ( talk) 19:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
P.S There is no indepth coverage of the topic. Mere inclusion of a "word" in few articles doesn't make it notable. LearnIndology ( talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It is not required to claim they are unreliable- you got it upside down, colleague. We get the list of proved reliable sources in order to avoid repeated evaluation. Simlarly we hv verifie unreliable souces, to aoid repeated discussion. For all unlisted sources you have to prove that they are not reliable. Lembit Staan ( talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre- So in your opinion we have to forbid reference from the government opposition and we have to forbid to present their point of view. and hence your vote is to turn wikipedia into a "godi media": no bad word agaist the goverment. This violates our fundamental policy WP:NPOV. Lembit Staan ( talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I have added links to the previous
WP:AFD at top-right manually as this article had a different title previously. Thank you
Run n Fly (
talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a separate article. As article very clearly fails WP:N. As article fails WP:N for have to be separate article further saying things are just punctilio.
Better idea would be to merge the article in another article as a sub-section of any lapdog article or any ' Media of India' related article(related,not specifically this Media of India article.
A term of slang (used by some persons or some media) doesn't deserve to be a separate article on wiki(sub-section of another article (of Indian Media) is better).
I'm not denying the fact that, These channels (listed in the article Godi media) partially took side of present government, sometimes.
As who favors the government are callled Godi media(also there are channels who always speak against government, even if government is doing well in any matter. Those are also called like(libra**s, Sikular many more things, than I think they also should have the articles. But being a good wikipedian(good thinker),even these things don't deserve a separate article,a sub-section in ' Media of India' may be quite good.)
+--+Still, some about the fact that...
There are some reliable sources in article, but most of them are opinionated like examples of
Churnalism. Most sources lack
WP:NPOV and also there are
WP:PARTISAN sources.
Articles in some reliable sources here in the article are the opinionated columns
WP:RSOPINION of those indian writers(who have worked or were working with
Ndtv and
Ravish Kumar and also whose thinking goes to left leaning--
[1]
Mostly things are given of
Original Research
. Also reliable sources merely mention this word(even those reports are opinionated .i.e.
Churnalism). And these kind of opinionated mentions or opinionated news doesn't hold strong point for a separate article.
Just because a journalist came up with a slang word,(there are also words like that for that journalist also,but that's not an essential thing to create a article) it doesn't need to be a separate article (you can mention this word Godi media on his page,not as a article).
I will be the first to create a separate article on Godi media if all the news channel owners of listed in Godi media forms a separate news agency and named it Godi Media.
Godi media really a low-opinion slur or outrageous word doesn't need to be a separate article
.
Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 ( talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The above handwaves of sources ( WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST) is misleading and weakens the case of notability of this subject. Tessaracter ( talk) 10:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*Delete This is clearly a POV article with particular agenda of defaming media houses which do not support their certain ideology. ---
256Drg (
talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Purely disruptive material" (and subsequent comments, per suggestion) —— Serial 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There are many guys on this platform who are vandalising articles according to their POV. Here is an example I have been involved into. Where everyone support Controversy section on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article but can not get 'consensus' to add the same section on Winston Churchill article : See here. --- 256Drg ( talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
|
References
The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. There are additional sources that can be added. You can also build a great article using passing mentions with support from more significant coverage. Let's try improving the article, discussing it on the talk page, and feel free to re-nominate if you're losing sleep that this subject does not merit inclusion. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The subject is merely social media slang, used by a certain group of people and some unreliable so-called "online news outlets", which were created a few years ago. The majority of the refs used are WP:QS do not pass WP:RS. Last but not least, the subject clearly fails WP:N. LearnIndology ( talk) 19:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
P.S There is no indepth coverage of the topic. Mere inclusion of a "word" in few articles doesn't make it notable. LearnIndology ( talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It is not required to claim they are unreliable- you got it upside down, colleague. We get the list of proved reliable sources in order to avoid repeated evaluation. Simlarly we hv verifie unreliable souces, to aoid repeated discussion. For all unlisted sources you have to prove that they are not reliable. Lembit Staan ( talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre- So in your opinion we have to forbid reference from the government opposition and we have to forbid to present their point of view. and hence your vote is to turn wikipedia into a "godi media": no bad word agaist the goverment. This violates our fundamental policy WP:NPOV. Lembit Staan ( talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I have added links to the previous
WP:AFD at top-right manually as this article had a different title previously. Thank you
Run n Fly (
talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a separate article. As article very clearly fails WP:N. As article fails WP:N for have to be separate article further saying things are just punctilio.
Better idea would be to merge the article in another article as a sub-section of any lapdog article or any ' Media of India' related article(related,not specifically this Media of India article.
A term of slang (used by some persons or some media) doesn't deserve to be a separate article on wiki(sub-section of another article (of Indian Media) is better).
I'm not denying the fact that, These channels (listed in the article Godi media) partially took side of present government, sometimes.
As who favors the government are callled Godi media(also there are channels who always speak against government, even if government is doing well in any matter. Those are also called like(libra**s, Sikular many more things, than I think they also should have the articles. But being a good wikipedian(good thinker),even these things don't deserve a separate article,a sub-section in ' Media of India' may be quite good.)
+--+Still, some about the fact that...
There are some reliable sources in article, but most of them are opinionated like examples of
Churnalism. Most sources lack
WP:NPOV and also there are
WP:PARTISAN sources.
Articles in some reliable sources here in the article are the opinionated columns
WP:RSOPINION of those indian writers(who have worked or were working with
Ndtv and
Ravish Kumar and also whose thinking goes to left leaning--
[1]
Mostly things are given of
Original Research
. Also reliable sources merely mention this word(even those reports are opinionated .i.e.
Churnalism). And these kind of opinionated mentions or opinionated news doesn't hold strong point for a separate article.
Just because a journalist came up with a slang word,(there are also words like that for that journalist also,but that's not an essential thing to create a article) it doesn't need to be a separate article (you can mention this word Godi media on his page,not as a article).
I will be the first to create a separate article on Godi media if all the news channel owners of listed in Godi media forms a separate news agency and named it Godi Media.
Godi media really a low-opinion slur or outrageous word doesn't need to be a separate article
.
Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 ( talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The above handwaves of sources ( WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST) is misleading and weakens the case of notability of this subject. Tessaracter ( talk) 10:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*Delete This is clearly a POV article with particular agenda of defaming media houses which do not support their certain ideology. ---
256Drg (
talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Purely disruptive material" (and subsequent comments, per suggestion) —— Serial 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There are many guys on this platform who are vandalising articles according to their POV. Here is an example I have been involved into. Where everyone support Controversy section on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article but can not get 'consensus' to add the same section on Winston Churchill article : See here. --- 256Drg ( talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
|
References