Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aha (streaming service)

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. I think we've run out of time on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha (streaming service)

[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)

Promotion of a website. Lack of independent reliable references. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: It's opening has received coverage from reliable sources Deccan Chronicle, NewsMinute etc. and has non-trivial article published later such as The Hans India. So its borderline GNG pass. --Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get better refs such as those in Ab207's comment. WestCD (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WestCD: Hi. Kindly see WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES :) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt have significant coverage. The sources I could find, and provided above by Ab207 are press release/WP:ROUTINE coverage, they dont establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other non-trivial sources which covered the subject after its launch. News18,^[1] Asianet,^[2] NTV Telugu,^[3] and The Hans India^[4] presented above. --Ab207 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ఆ విషయంలో అల్లు అరవింద్ ఫెయిల్ అయ్యాడా." News18 Telugu (in Telugu). 24 March 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ Prakash, Surya. "అరవింద్ 'ఆహా ఓటీటీ'కు అదే పెద్ద దెబ్బ". Asianet News Telugu (in Telugu). Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ "Allu Aravind's 'Aha' to present these films/Originals in August". NTV Telugu. 4 August 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ Prakash, B. V. S. (15 May 2020). "Aha hires seasoned directors as consultants to dish out hit content". The Hans India. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

These sources are again routine/press releases. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: allow time for better references to emerge. This may be another TOOSOON article, yet, it is unfolding and they are throwing money around to capture an audience. In India, of all places. We will see more and more of these services emerge. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL advices us to avoid exact same arguments. The same logic can be applied to every non notable subject: "allow time for better references to emerge". If it is not notable now, then it is not notable now. If it becomes notable in future, we can create an article then. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This lack multiple in-depth reliable sources about it and I don't think it's simply a case of WP:TOSOON since the service has been around since January. So, if there was going to be any in-depth coverage it would have already happened. Even if there might be some eventually though, the answer isn't to keep the article until it materializes, but to delete it now and recreate it if (or when) the sourcing is good enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both News18 and Asianet News provide a commentary on how Aha is struggling to compete with other OTT platforms. These are not certainly routine/press releases. --Ab207 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting I came here to close this since it's been relisted multiple times, but I think one more week might be helpful. It would help determine consensus if new comments address whether the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE or not. — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have sources showing notability. BEFORE showed nothing that would show notability. Sources are routine, run of the mill, mentions, promos, etc. There has been ample time for SIGCOV to be found, but nothing. It might be TOOSOON, but it might never be and WP is not CRYSTAL. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please close this AfD soon, even if it has to be No Consensus? It has been going on for over a month now. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
addendum to my previous delete comment: like user:Adamant1 has pointed above, the service has been around since January. It should have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage by now. For companies to establish notability, they need to have sustained coverage. The subject here fails that. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The service was launched in February, and articles are dated March, May and August, hence there is sustained coverage. The two sources mentioned above provide critical commentary about its performance, and the Hans India article by named author explores its future plans. These are not routine/press releases. The service is frequently in news as it produces original content was well. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not really sure what the difference is, I probably should have been clearly that it was "soft launched" in January. I don't think the distinction matters though. Plenty of software products and streaming services have better media coverage when they are in beta (or even just the planning phase) then this has had in almost a year. That said, even if the fact that it "launch" on March 25 was the important thing here, I wouldn't consider an article printed at the same time as a sign of sustained coverage and I still don't think this meets that standard even with the articles that were printed in May and August. Since it can't just be any coverage and should be a little more sustained then two articles over six months. For instance, if there was an article about something printed the day it came out and then the only other coverage was a single article ten years later, I don't think would it count as "sustained coverage" even though time has passed. Although, it seems like everyone interprets the guideline differently and that's fine. Also, WP:SUSTAINED says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." As far as the Hans India article goes, it also says "future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." I think speculation about future events {or "plans") such as those made in the Hans India article are exactly what it is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already disregarded a series of articles published around it's launch ceremony (dated 11 February), which might be "Brief bursts of news coverage." Extending that period to exclude the articles published in the following month is a bit excessive in my view. The Hans India article, despite speaking about future events, is a GNG source, keeping in mind that there isn't anything in the article which constitutes PROMO. These three sources are sufficient for the subject to establish it's notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap and so we are clear on things, which three sources are you talking about and what are their publication dates? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. News18 and Asianet (both published in March), and Hans India (published in May). There's another source of NTV Telugu from August, but now it seems to be redirecting to their main page. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2020 (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.

[1] "ఆ విషయంలో అల్లు అరవింద్ ఫెయిల్ అయ్యాడా." News18 Telugu (in Telugu). 24 March 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

[2] Prakash, Surya. "అరవింద్ 'ఆహా ఓటీటీ'కు అదే పెద్ద దెబ్బ". Asianet News Telugu (in Telugu). Retrieved 22 September 2020.

[3] "Allu Aravind's 'Aha' to present these films/Originals in August". NTV Telugu. 4 August 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

[4] Prakash, B. V. S. (15 May 2020). "Aha hires seasoned directors as consultants to dish out hit content". The Hans India. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]