Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamini (music festival)

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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yamini (music festival)

Yamini (music festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All sources are to Indian covert advertising articles or other forms of paid press. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Unless something has been shown on WP:RSN to the contrary, The Hindu and Deccan Herald are WP:RS, and both have covered. Passes WP:GNG.

• Indian media cannot be trusted blindly because of how endemic covert advertising is there; this has been discussed before and in other AfDs. The Hindu and Deccan Herald articles are both pretty obvious covert advertising. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Blind trust has nothing to do with it. If there is a problem with those particular sources, then there needs to be some evidence beyond bland generalizations. "Obvious covert advertising" is such a generalization. Is there any evidence that these particular articles were not subject to editorial judgment and review? If not, then they are still WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Both Deccan Herald and the Hindu have been known to run paid articles in the past without disclosing it. Again, Indian news media has chronic issues with covert advertising, in part because their journalistic ethics are underdeveloped. Have you actually read the sources in question? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I wasn't aware of that. If you can link to a discussion, please do. I'm not doubting you. Just interested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashish_Kashyap, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LiveMedia, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craftsvilla_(2nd_nomination) have some discussion on Indian media's issues. Talk:Raees_(film)#bdul Latif revisited also explains things somewhat. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jéské Couriano that we can't blindly trust Indian media. This report published by The World Economic Forum listed Indian media as the most untrusted institution after Australia and as per my experiance I notice some journalists don't do their own research they write what they saw on Wikipedia and many of them happily act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

These are, again, generalizations. Unless some editor has evidence that these sources on this article are paid PR, then bandying about generalizations about poor journalistic practices has no utility to the discussion. Unless you are saying that all Indian media are not WP:RS, in which case, there really needs to be a community discussion at WP:RSN to establish that premise. Until that premise is established or that particularized evidence is produced, however, this passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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.