Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WatchIndiaTV


 * 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. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WatchIndiaTV

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam


 * Delete; non-notable and sources given are insignificant. Haakon (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Spammy, only sources seem to be press releases. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Weak keep The sources are clearly not press releases, did you read them? The company is the first to broadcast Indian content via the web to reach elsewhere.  It also is in multiple independant sources receiving substatial coverage.  The advertising material has also been cleaned up.  This is clearly a notable internet television station.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Switching to neutral - If the company didn't pay for so much advertising, maybe it would be easier to find actual coverage.  As it stands, the 1 ref that isnt a press release and the fact that the company is the first of it's type is my only reason for keeping.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources are clearly press releases: and . The third source,, is mainly a press release-like "In their own words" section -- not independent, and certainly not significant. That's all the sources accounted for. If you can list some of the multiple independent sources, it would be helpful. Haakon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your right about the first two, that was my oversight. There were plenty of hits on google, I am sure I can find more references.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Keep us posted as to whether you find anything and change the article accordingly.  I'll change my mind if it meets up. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually given up now. I spent a good half hour searching for sources and most of them are paid advertisements meant to read as reviews.  I believe I've done as thorough a job as possible by anyone.  I've appropriately changed my !vote to weak keep as noted above.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feh, that's a shame. May very well be too new.  Not an uncommon thing, it's not going to be notable overnight. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article is simply promotional with no useful content and not much likelihood of improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SPAM. 2 press releases and a blog post != WP:N. Additionally, self-serving claims of "first!" contained in self-published sources fail WP:V. cab (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (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.