Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Media Group (3rd 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. There is a rough consensus that the sources mentioned do not show notability for the subject. Aoidh (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Indus Media Group
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails to meet WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH, article is promotional directory of the company's brands, nothing found in reliable sources, primary and unreliable, profile and directory listing sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations,  and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources Business Recorder, Dawn, BizAsia, Pakistan Insider, and a few others are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. You can't ask better coverage than this for a media group in other rival media sources:(WP:NMEDIA). Though there is some unsourced content in the article to be removed. Insight 3 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NCORP is the right guideline as this is a media company, completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and we don't if this company is still active as all of their tv channels are defunct now. Insight 3's refs analysis: Business Recorder article is a "news desk" report, Dawn article is a similar one - the article doesn't mention its author, insider.pk and bizasialive type sources are simply unreliable, not a WP:GNG standard source. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "News desk" simply means the report is prepared by several staff members, not that it is sponsored or paid content. Both Business Recorder and Dawn are reliable sources, so no reason to dismiss the sources (See RSN discussion on the matter). Insight 3 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreed with Insight 3 point here. It does have sufficient sources available. TheAnasKhan (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: assessment of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per M.Ashraf333's assessment. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * CU note TheAnasKhan above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:19, 30 March 2023 (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.