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]

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]
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.
More