Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Mic Stand

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

One Mic Stand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

One Mic Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to and add details to List of Amazon India originals#Comedy Does need better sourcing to remain an article. I have moved the article to One Mic Stand at the very least to meet titling standards. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep seems a reasonable television article about a show that has had its second season back in October-November so its not an obvious advert. Better references would help but refs 2, 4 and 6 are not as bad as the nominator suggests, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I do definitely disagree with the ADVERT/FANCRUFT article suggested by the nom; compared to truly cruft-polluted articles for Zee, Sony and Colors soaps and dramas, this is hardly at the levels of those articles at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Refs in the article are useless, but on searching elsewhere I find it to meet WP:GNG based on these sources. Hemantha (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Keep – Meet's WP:GNG. Here's another source from The Hindu that provides significant coverage. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. It is not pitching to readers to view the show, it is not interlaced with promotional buzzwords, and it is not extolling the show. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - such coverage as there is is not independent of the subject, being essentially publicity packed as interview or article. Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete The hindu ref above is PR and and lot of the above is PR, e.g. Mint. What is fintech company hosting an advert. Seems to mostly primary. I'm not seeing any real secondary coverage that is not being paid for. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – The Hindu article I posted above is a bylined news article written by two staff writers. This is not a press release or public relations piece, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article, in which links are only present for the article itself and a couple of copies/mirrors of the original article. Conversely, press releases typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The difference is typically glaring when utilizing such searches. I also doubt that the article was "paid for", particularly without any proof of this being provided; all that has been provided to qualify this claim is proof by assertion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's not that Mint, it's Mint (newspaper) from Hindustan Times' publisher. That article has a by-line and some independent content like mentions of past controversies. I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient on it's own, but in combination with other sources, I thought it had value towards establishing GNG. On the advert point, I disagree, per Northamerica1000's reasoning. Hemantha (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per sources now in article and mentioned above here, including [1] (10 lengthy paragraphs), [2], a very lengthy article that made financial/political news, and [3] a very lengthy article. These are very significant coverage. This show has been successful in both India with it's billion-plus population and the United States. The article needs improvement, but not only do sources WP:NEXIST to show notability via WP:GNG, there are plenty that are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: disagree that this coverage is:

  independent

  - sources 1 and 3 read as press release dressed up as interview -eg: "When Sapan Verma first came up with the idea of One Mic Stand four years ago, it wasn’t a feasible project for multiple reasons ..."; “We were all YouTubers back then"While getting these celebrities would have been easy, we wondered how he managed to get Shashi Tharoor to take up the challenge. “That, I think was our biggest luck. So not many know but a few years back ..."

  significant -

  - source 2 is only peripherally about the show; it's substantial coverage about an MP.

  Springnuts (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (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.