Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal News Network International (2nd nomination)

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal News Network International

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

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

This is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was closed as a speedy keep since the nominator was a sock. I've done a WP:BEFORE and can't find any WP:SIGCOV to provide an indication of WP:NCORP. The author appears to have an undisclosed WP:COI and has generated several similar articles with related topics that also fail WP:GNG and are currently up for deletion discussion: Here: [1], here [2], here [3], and here [4]. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the nom was a sock. But, what about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? If it's a clearly unworthy article, why should a sock nom stop editors from finding ways to delete it anyway? And what kind of rationale is that from @Dthomsen8: - 'This publisher provides the world with news about Nepal. Wikipedia editors can find information and news in English'? Both sentences are perfect candidates for what not to argue. What if the publisher provides the world with everything. Wikipedia only cares what the world has provided the subject with, in terms of coverage. I sure can't find information or news in English on this subject except from primary sources. So, unless Dthomsen8 actually cites sources, it's a delete for me.Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up any confusion, I believe the above comment is referring to content from the previous AFD nomination. I think we can safely disregard the previous botched nomination by a sock. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any coverage. I understand this was potentially a big thing, but only if someone cared, which is another way of saying if it affected anybody in the world enough for anyone to care. The company is analogous to Alphabet Inc. except in this company's case, nobody noticed. For all the evidence we have, it might as well be a hoax perpetrated by the Annapurna brand of news media. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete: on one hand I am inclined to presume sources and Notability exist for a company that runs a TV channel, multiple paper-newspapers, and radio. On the other hand my initial source search didn't turn up much. I found this company mentioned on three foreign language versions of Wikipedia, however as is often the case on small-language Wikipedias their article content was inferior to our own. The best I have to add the moment is a story nepalekhabar.com AP1 TV comes into operation in March 2017. The story only makes a passing mention of Annapurna Media Network (apparently also known as Nepal News Network International), confirming that it operates AP1 TV. I may-or-may-not return later to do more research and/or cast a !vote. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Revised to delete, with little changed from my original comment. I'm satisfied that my presumption-of-sourcing was mistaken, being based on assumptions from my home country that clearly aren't accurate in the Nepali media market. I see a significant likelihood that this company could become notable, but that just means the current article is deleted as WP:TOOSOON. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee:, this would be the case this guideline would have had in mind. Relevant quote: "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." The Nepalekhabar might be an argument on the notability of AP1 television, that caters to millions of audiences, not a parent company controlling it from the background, as is apparent from the way the news is written. The papers and radios it owns may be notable too. But there is no sufficient evidence for notability of this parent company. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Alphabet. Run the Alphabet vs. Google simul and scale it down to the scale of a country like Nepal whose economy is smaller than many businesses. Then, it makes sense why the likes of this corporation might still fail notability guidelines. The Nepali wikipedia article (which should be expected to have more proof of notability than is accessible to English editors) only cites a job listing on a job broker site (anyone can look, it's in English). The creator and sole contributor to that page is up for adminship and so far only has support. Go figure that out. Usedtobecool ^TALK 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool I definitely hear what you're saying. I'm not arguing for inheritance, and the lack of identified sources is very close to a killer point.I just hesitate here because it strikes me as surprising that there wouldn't be more sourcing in this case. It's not a point I normally cite, but the standard for Keep is whether proper sourcing exists, not whether they're in the article or even whether we've found them. I think I just want to sleep on this first, and (maybe) make another attempt at a pain-in-the-butt source search. Or maybe I'm just hoping for more confidence that a native-speaker had done a solid search. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a corporation of a size and importance that would be expected to be kept in Wikipedia, there should be more sources available as per WP:NEXIST offline if not online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Atlantic306, where did you find size and importance details on this company? Would you mind sharing them? It seems no one else in this discussion could find WP:NEXIST even though we've tried. Orville1974 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: - any reply to the above? starship .paint (talk)
Keep Being one of the old National News network of Nepal which runs annapurna news, Ap HD , Annapurna Patrika and this guys are directly attacking without knowin the criteria of Wikipedia. Owlf 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship .paint (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. What we are looking for is significance coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and I’m not seeing it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Does not meet any form of notability. Virtually no coverage at all with such links as there are being search farms or directories. ogenstein (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (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.