Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Entertainment


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Green Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source  seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR.  I think this gives a possible option to redirect the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was, but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source.  Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to Merge to ISPR at this point.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be merged to the ISPR article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment.  WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself.  I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable.  Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel.  As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name).    Ravensfire  (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia.  Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject?  They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG as we have at least two in-depth references about it. First of all, this is a very important topic, as the channel is operated by the ISPR (I concur with Saqib). Initially, they launched it as an ISPR-operated channel, so Youlin etc covered as such but since then public sentiment has changed in Pakistan and it is negative against military due to their interference in politics and media. So now the military is trying to hide this relationship using different proxy companies - they don't want to fail this project. In any case, we shouldn't censor this information. To best my knowledge, Youline is a perfectly reliable quality reference and it is wrong to assume that it is generally without any consensus - if any of you have some examples of wrong reporting from them then present it on WP:RSN. Just because Wikipedia doesn't consider it as a notable topic doesn't mean Youlin is unreliable now - I'm reinstating the content removed recently. So we have one in-depth article in Youline and second in-depth article in Independent Urdu . Please don't apply Western standards to Pakistani articles and take into consideration of local circumstances, like the control of media by ISPR in which they forbid such reporting. 195.180.32.35 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 195.180.32.35, But I had an epiphany after @CNMall41, pointed out WP:WALLEDGARDEN. I guess I'll just go ahead and say DELETE this. By the way, are you the same who claimed that Bol News is reliable? And just so you know, Youline ISN'T a RS. It's just a cultural website that allows guest contributions. Plus, your coverage is essentially a guest contribution, considering the author only contributed just two stories. Therefore, it can't be used to establish WP:GNG. Calling Youline a RS seems generous, given its meager history of just 06 editorials in 12 years. While the Independent Urdu coverage serves well WP:V, but it doesn't quite meet the threshold for WP:GNG - because it primarily relies on interviews with the CEO of the Green Entertainment. See you around! — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 22:50, 28 May 2024 (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.