Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godi media


 * 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 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)

Godi media
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * keep I strongly support this wiki. this should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.201.145 (talk)
 * Delete I totally agree with deleting this. At best, it could be included as a subsection in a wider article on Theory of Lapdog journalism, something this article had a section on previously. Agent raymond232 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Please do add (*Delete) in the beginning of your comment. LearnIndology (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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. It clearly fails WP:N and article is full of WP:OR. desmay (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the article of WP:OR. Please explain why it "clearly fails". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * keep - slang or not, no matter who uses it, it refers to a certain phenomenon in India social media and certainly a nontyrivial searchable term, with reasonably reliable sources which explain it. NOt to say that it was coined in a reliable source. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. The following cited sources are good (if one claims they are unreliable, please establish this at the special place: WP:RSN):
 * Philipose, Pamela @ The Wire gives the definition, connects "godi" and "lapdog" terms, gives the usage and an explanation how they operate;
 * Washington Post reasonably elaborates on the subject as well
 * Frontline is under paywall, but "godi media" and "lapdog" aree searchable by browser in the article
 * Gulf News shows that Kumar is not a random journalist to invent a random term and gives some more bits on the subject
 * Clarion India Describes several anti-Muslim godi media
 * I din't look into other refs. IMO the ones above are sufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not required to claim they are unreliable. They are not reliable by the virtue of them missing in the list of reliable news sources. If you claim they are "good", you need to prove them to be WP:RS. Opinion pieces contributed to organizations known to publish content with a specific slant which are not well established news sources are not reliable enough to justify a reference. Now, coming to your specific items,
 * The Frontline, Gulf news, Washington Post and Clarion India articles are opinion pieces. They don't talk about the usage of the term Godi media in common parlance nor do they provide any evidence for this. They only talk about this term being coined by the aforementioned journalist. A phrase being used by a certain journalist is not notable enough for having its own page. To justify its own page, the content should be well researched and sourced to justify this page's claim in the second paragraph that it was widely used. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable news sources, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." That is not being done here.
 * The only evidence of this term being used in common parlance is in the Wire article, but the Wire is hardly a reliable source of information. It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre. It has on several occasions referenced fake news from other sources or has created fake news on its own. I can mention two incidents off the top of my head but that is beyond the purview of discussion here.
 * Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 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)
 * There are only two reliable sources (Frontline and NYT) cited in the article, and both of these sources nowhere use the term "Godi media". LearnIndology (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Frontline has used "Godi Media" an the NYT has used "lapdog media". There is also a Caravan source, several from The Wire and Newslaundry, all of which are reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where on Frontline and NYT editions do you find the reference of "Godi media" ? Also, I checked the list of reliable sources and it does not even list The Wire, Caravan and Newslaundry. Further, a lot of those pieces are written as editorials, analyses and opinions, hence do not abide by WP:NEWSORG for reporting facts. To summarise, only New York Times is listed as a reliable source in Wikipedia and even that too does not mention the word "Godi media", even if you were to be believed.Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * NEWSORG are about reporting facts which are news, i.e., events. We are talking about a concept, a term. These things are not necessarily defined in the news, but in the analyses. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The term in question here cannot originate from analyses. It has to be backed by news covering events mentioning its use. If those news items are not reliable or are not news at all, the WP:N of this term is put under question. Just because some opinion writer thinks of coming up a new slang to malign a certain group of people, it does not become Wikipedia worthy. Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes political terms can originate from analysis, and its proponent is an award-winning journalist, who knows what he is speaking about. And he does not malign, he accuses, with arguments. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you are mistaken of wikipedia rules: mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Yes political terms can originate from analysis," Where is it mentioned so in Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the qualities of the proponent you are proclaiming here is your point of view. In my point of view, he does selective journalism and shows half truth to support his propaganda. But that is beside the point. Also, as you rightly mentioned, mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability, and that is why this page is up for deletion. It is not a notable topic at all. Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are enough good sources, and this is apparently an important topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the other user points out, hardly any of the sources mention the term Godi media. Also, this topic hardly warrants a page for itself. At the most, this can be kept as a subsection of a page discussing the Theory of Lapdog Journalism.
 * Wrong; see my "P.S". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your "P.S". Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources. It is not the case that only sources listed in WP:RSP count as reliable; please read WP:RSPMISSING. Neither is it the case that an opinion piece in a reliable source can never be used to support the fact that a term is used – it is a question of context, per WP:RSPUSE. It is a problem that names of media outlets are added indiscriminately as examples of godi media without sources to support the use for that particular publication, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. [Adding: Note that there are sources supporting the claim that "Godi media" is used about those newspapers and TV channels that are currently listed in the article.] --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone provide significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources concerning this term? Passing mentions are not enough for creating an article about a pejorative term. Shankargb (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several references in the article with reasonable coverage, not just mentioning, see my PS. list above. The article may be easily expanded with more detailed descriptions from them. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to link those "several references" here that are enough for establishing the notability of the subject. Vague handwaves do nothing. LearnIndology (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: 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 columnsWP:RSOPINION of those indian writers(who have worked or were working with Ndtv and Ravish Kumar and also whose thinking goes to left leaning-- 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)
 * Keep - I agree with Bonadeas assessment that it is a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, it's a very notable topic and worth including in encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. No sources provide it significant coverage. Agletarang (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That a word has a pejorative meaning has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word belongs to the casual/slang register has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word is not popular with a particular group has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. The only thing that can determine whether it is a notable term is whether there is significant coverage in independent sources. The article currently includes multiple sources that talk about the phrase: the five sources listed by Lembit Staan above, and also a couple of Newslaundry sources (in particular the one called "Media has lost our trust"). By the way, somebody was claiming higher up in this thread that Newslaundry is not considered to be a RS, but [t]here is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. There are also many sources that use the term without discussing it in any depth – this includes the National Herald and New Frame (which I just restored to the article). In fact, I get so many minor/trivial hits in GNews and GScholar that it is very clear indeed that the phrase "Godi media" is in common use, and not just used by a small group, or as a passing fad. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. A non-notable topic, which is popular only on Twitter. Knox490 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Surely enough notable term and a well-sourced article.— TheWikiholic (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per my request above. Subject fails WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete pejorative, uncyclopaedic term only used by a small group. Fails WP:N. --RaviC (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Here is my analysis of the main sources used on this article:



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)


 * Your "significant coverage?" column only documents the coverage of "Godi media" (the term) and not the coverage of Godi media (the media). For example, The first source ("Muzzling the media: How the Modi regime continues to undermine the news landscape") is almost entirely about the very media that are being called Godi media. And your table says, it isn't significant coverage. This is hardly a reasonable analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 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)
 * When you say "main sources", is that a reference to how much each source is used in the article? I know that source assessment takes a bit of time, but I am a little puzzled about why you selected those specific sources. Several people (including myself) have pointed to significant coverage that exists in the article right now, such as the Newslaundry and Caravan sources. That is not "handwaving". It also looks like you accidentally included one of the Wire sources twice – the Wire article you did not include is specifically about the use of the phrase. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This would imply that this assessment table is a biased assessment and should be taken as such. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * @256Drg These two are entirety unrelated articles and completely different discussions. I do not understand why you have linked it here. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * is trolling; see this discussion, as a result of which they will soon be indefinitely blocked. Cheers! ——  Serial  16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 Would it be possible to remove this comment [and replies to it] based on purely disruptive and unrelated [after a decision is made on the noticeboard]; or should it be kept and be considered for this (Godi media) AfD discussion? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming that 256Drg has now been indef blocked. I also think his comment above should be removed. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bonadea's thorough analysis; recommend a little deeper WP:BEFORE. ——  Serial  16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Some WP:RS with significant coverage not yet in the article.  --SUN EYE 1  17:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Nitesh003 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bonadea above. Also, per SN54129, insufficient WP:BEFORE nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2021 (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.