Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hum News (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 no consensus‎. While none of the Keep !votes was able to present a coherent, P&G-based argument, after three weeks, there was still no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 05:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum News

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. One of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism. Media houses in Pakistan hardly cover the launch of a new competitor but in this case we have some organic coverage: Dawn ([1], [2], [3], [4]), Pakistan Today ([5]). It is owned a listed-company (WP:LISTED) so there are a lot of research reports like this. One of the most watched channel in Pakistan per TRPs data ([6]). 2A01:4B00:87FF:FC00:4D86:AF87:BFAF:D55A (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote although I find it highly suspicious. Regardless, you have just proven why this does not meet notability guidelines. Every single reference you provided falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is NOT considered reliable. There is also no inherent notability for it being "one of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism." Your arguments are more of WP:ILIKEIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, retain it for now; while this article lacks references, it's imperative to enhance it. Considering it's from a prominent news channel, deletion seems unwarranted.

Crosji (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the policy based reason to keep the page? Keeping it because it is from a "prominent news channel" would be fine assuming the sources are there to support the assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sincerely believe this article is worth keeping because it's one of the major TV news channels in Pakistan. Although I understand it was nominated here because it was previously unreferenced. Took 4 of the above best newspaper references shown above, archived them and added them to the above article. Passes WP:GNG now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those references show notability. This is about a correspondent, not the news channel. This is an announcement about an even that was organized by Hum Network Limited, NOT the news network. This and This are both NEWSORGINDIA and even if they were not, they would be considered WP:ROUTINE.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this was not nominated because "it was previously unreferenced." Please do not misquote me. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator All of a sudden most reliable newspapers from Pakistan are being SLAPPED with the label NEWSORGINDIA on this AfD forum and accused of paid editing. Where is the evidence that they are!!! I strongly urge the closing administrator to take a look at the article itself to form an opinion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't all of a sudden. NEWSORGINDIA has been in place for a while. You are also asking for a WP:SUPERVOTE instead of presenting references that are reliable. I am wondering why you brought up UPE though since I have made no mention of it here. Again, you seem to misquote me. Please stop. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the Hum News article which is the subject here. All the references are reliable at the article despite anyone's personal assumption and assertion that they are not. Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith' by Wikipedia. It would be a waste of time for the nominator and I to engage in personal back and forth debate here...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't focused on anything but until I read you misquoting me and saying I made an accusation which was not made. So, yes, let's focus on the "reliable" references here. Source assessment below. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - Reviewing the sources on the page and those presented in AfD, they still do not show notability based on my assessment:--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn, falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and clear reprint of a press release – “The Hum Network Limited has announced……”

Profit, also NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and also a reprint of a press release. Notice it was posted within one day of the reference above which indicates churnalism based on an announcement from the parent network.

Daily Pakistan, also NEWSORGINDIA but let’s assume that it is reliable for a minute. It is an article that talks about television ratings of many networks and only has Hum News on the list with its ratings. Being included in a list is not significant coverage.

PM AWARD, promotional blog and the reference isn’t even live anymore (used the archive link).

Dawn, While Hum News is in the title, this is NOT about Hum News, it is about the parent company. It doesn’t even mention Hum News. It is related to this article about a takeover of the parent and even that article only mentions Hum News as being a part of the parent.

Dawn, Not sure why this was presented in the AfD as significant coverage. It is about a person who gave an interview on the network and not about the network itself. Brief mention and only verifies it exists. Verifiability is not notability.

Dawn, mentions Hum News in the caption only. Article is about someone who gave an interview on the network. Brief mention (if that) and not significant coverage.

So far we both are giving our views back and forth. That's why I said earlier above to let a neutral closing administrator look at the article itself...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators weigh the strength of arguments that use policy based reasoning to vote. They do not review the page and make a supervote. My vote and comments are not my "views" or "personal assumption and assertion." You stated "Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith'." I simply provided that evidence above based on your comment. Are you able to point out which one of those references I listed can be used towards notability? Or, if you can provide alternatives I would be happy to review and withdraw the nomination if they do show it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2024 (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.