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. It has been shown that several of the sources do not establish notability and are probably hindering the creation and maintenance of an NPOV article. Other sources seem to Indicate that GNG is met, although consensus is not strong here, therefore I discern no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OtakuKart[edit]

OtakuKart (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)

I'm confused on this. CSD has been recently declined and I agree with that. Some sources have disclaimers while others are overwhelmingly promotional but in general significant coverage in multiple reliable sources should help it pass GNG. However, similar details come in several sources. Deccan Chronicle source says, "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Could other volunteer editors help me in this? Do these disclaimers mean that there is WP:UPE involved with this submission? Comments please. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, India, and Gujarat. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipage has enough citations from relevant news sources. It also played important role in the Indian Anime Movement, and there are citations from BWBusinessWorld & AnimationXpress for the same. This page was previously set for deletion as well and was rejected. Itsalldestiny (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsalldestiny, I would just say "no" to two of the sources provided their disclaimers. Animationxpress is not a reliable source and I don't think BWBusinessWorld is either. As I said, there is significant coverage which may help it pass WP:GNG but the nature of coverage is undue promotional and two sources suggest WP:UPE. What do you have to say on that? I'm myself confused on several resources and that's why we are here to receive comments from the community. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BW Business World was estbalished in 1981 and is a very reliable source. AnimationXpress has been around for quite a long time and is reliable as well. A few people commented here earlier saying that you helped them do this but comments were removed. Let's wait for the community's response on this. Itsalldestiny (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different people view sources differently so it is okay to have differences. I do not see "a few people" having commented here but there was a personal attack that has been removed. It is quite possible that OtakuKart has got some adversaries who come here randomly and speak nonsense but that has nothing to do with volunteer editors. I feel this AfD should be protected so that anons don't participate in this discussion. @MER-C, would you be doing this please? ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one IP. MER-C 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the AfC reviewer that accepted this, I thought I should weigh in, but I unfortunately I don't think my comment will provide much sway one way or another now. I accepted this as part of the AfC backlog drive last year per the WP:AFCPURPOSE of thinking it would probably survive an AfD. I guess this puts that to the test...
  At the time, I think I saw the plethora of sources from what seemed to be respectable Indian newspaper and magazine outlets. AnimationXpress, I also gave the benefit of the doubt to since it lists a contact for an Editor-in-Chief taking that to give some reliability. I've since learned to be more skeptical of articles when they do not include a byline. Sometimes a website will WP:CHURN out a press-release and say it's from the staff instead of including an author's name that wrote a piece independently. I would probably be concerned about that Deccan Chronicle piece now. And the Deccan Herald piece says "This article is part of a featured content programme." I'm not quite sure what that means, and unfortunately, my unfamiliarity with Indian media practices makes me hesitant to judge this with much authority. The piece with only byline used doesn't really confer notability to OkatuKart itself. The Week piece seems decently written from an independent view,^[1] but I don't know what "The Week Focus" means. They seem to use it a lot on the Sci/Tech subjects, and at the same time, bylines are used more frequently on some other articles depending on the subject area. The India Today piece seems to cover the same news, but it reads more like it could be a copy/paste of a flowery press release than The Week, and I don't know what an "Impact Feature" is.
  All that said, I know WP:NMEDIA is an essay vice a guideline, but there are some points worth considering that media rarely covers competition, but this site does seem to be considered a useful resource by others in the spirit of WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals criteria #s 3 and 4. When trying the AfD source-search links, the site is actually cited by a published book and some GScholar citations such as this. I'm very on the fence here... sorry for the long journey nowhere. - 2pou (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The majority of the references are likely PRs; as they are without bylines, those articles read like PR. I don't believe most of the sources added there are reliable, except for some that are inefficient to prove their notability as per WP:GNG. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a proepr comment if they are PR or not. "Likely PRs" is not a proepr comment when a Wikipedia Page is at stake of getting deleted. As I said earlier, the sources are reliable and reputable. These sites are cited on countless Wikipedia articles. Itsalldestiny (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well, the references that I said were actually PRs include a Deccan Chronicle citation; upon visiting the news article, it says that "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content." "The group also takes no responsibility for this content," as written at the end as a disclaimer. When we browse the 2nd news citation of Mid-day, it has the byline "BrandMedia," which is actually a PR company, and it also adds "partnered content" at the end, which means Mid-day has not written it, so it is also PR. The third news citation in Outlook is also similar to the above two, and it also doesn't have any journalist bylines. After observing the fourth citation of Animation Xpress, it is also written like a PR and not as news. It also doesn't have any journalistic bylines, which means this one also comes from a PR company. Now there is the Deccan Chronicle repeated citation, and after that there is the FPJ citation, which is a rewritten form of the above PR source. Now, if we observe the seventh citation of NewsX, it is deleted by NewsX on their website, but the archive machine url shows an article that again doesn't have a journalist byline and is also written like a press release. Now, the eighth citation of India Today is also a PR because it is written in as an "impact feature." The Impact Feature in the News is defined as "Impact is a weekly print magazine publishing information on advertising and advertising marketing news specifically targeted towards agency and business managers." Now, the ninth citation of The Week also doesn't have a byline, but it says the reporters and staff gave information in its first paragraph, so we'll leave The Week's citation for now. The tenth citation in Business World is not about the OtakuKart, as it discusses Shubham Sharma, not the OtakuKart. Similarly, the eleventh citation of Animation Xpress has not discussed the OtakuKart. And the last twelveth citation is a tweet link, which is not reliable.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deccan Chronicle article likely came from a syndicate feed. Animation Express, Outlook, India Today, The Week, and Business World, are all legit sources. Shubham Sharma is part of OtakuKart. Itsalldestiny (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reply: News Articles that don't have bylines are fetched from syndicated feeds or press releases. A journalist's byline in the news means the subject is independently covered by a journalist for the particular news outlet. Most of these sources don't have any journalist byline.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true. Different news websites works differently. Itsalldestiny (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2022 (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.