Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoichoi

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoichoi[edit]

[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)

All news are PR Based on material. Fails WP:NCORP Lordofhunter (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Lordofhunter,

hoichoi is an renowned Bengali OTT platform with a userbase of more than 10M+ (According to Google's playstore).

All the PRs are based on content releases. For better understanding we can add more relevant PRs which tells more about the platform.

I hope this is fine with you. People do search "hoichoi" in wikipedia and they landed to this page to know the latest content available on the platform. Deletion of such a rich and contentful Wikipedia page is won't be a good option though. Bitwits (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not acceptable per WP:ORGIND Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiderone, we can add more relevant details if Press releases are not acceptable. Bitwits (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwits Could you please explain, what do you mean by "WE"?Lordofhunter (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"WE" means me you and other Wikipedia writers like Lordofhunter. Or other writers who contributes to the same type of pages on Wikipedia. Bitwits (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen know any of these wikipedia "writers"? btw you have an interesting talk page history re: article creation. // Timothy :: talk 12:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google news shows in depth coverage in independent reliable sources such as Variety (magazine)^{24 Sep 2021, 19 Jan 2023} and Mint (newspaper)^{24 Sep 2021} Google scholar also shows coverage in studies of the video streaming industry in Bangladesh (though some of these have backlisted URLs). Clearly the company and its activities are notable. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Google searches are not the criteria. Please read WP:GSNR. Variety source is just an announcement of launch in Bangladesh and the reaction of it by Company's founder. How is it independent? 2nd source Livemint heading itself says, it's an announcement, nothing more than PR Material. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested some of the articles which are intend to be promotional or containing launch details have been removed. I hope this is fine now. Bitwits (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the main concern, which is still not addressed. It's okay to have launch detail in a page, however, those are not the sources which defines notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you had done the WP:BEFORE process you would have never have submitted this AFD. Step D in the process is: "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". You did not do it. As mentioned above Google news and Google scholar show that the the company is notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GSNR Lordofhunter (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these articles published on multiple Indian leading news websites prove the platform's notability:

Response You need to read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. The India Times reference relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND. It is also not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH. This Business Standard reference is also *entirely* based on information provided by the company at their launch party, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The Telegraph India reference is a puff profile that also relies entirely on information provided by the company, also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed promotional unreferenced material and program listing. The rest of the article is supported by promotional materials, mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fails GNG, SNGs. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timothy, can you please guide me how I can get it fixed? Bitwits (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's covered in Variety, doesn't seem to be a contributor piece [1] and the Dhaka Tribune [2]. They seem like ok-ish sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read [3] properly, then it is about future plans and movies. The bottom content is again a statement given by the company. In the whole content, it is hard to find independent analysis by the journalist about the company. While the 2nd source is a clear announcement of 5 new series.Lordofhunter (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree b, the Variety piece *and* the Dhaka Tribune piece rely entirely on an announcement of future plans made by the company on their 5th "birthday". For example, in or around the same time, similar article discussing the exact same topic can be found on Binged, The Times of India and (most telling) Media Brief (which is used for announcements). Because of that, those references fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reference links have been removed. Hope the article is fine now. Bitwits (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the point. All are poor sources. Majority of them are show annoucement and launch, and half of them are not even reliable sources. If you think sources exist please share them here. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And he/she evidently does not understand your point either. What he/she should be doing, is going through Google News and Google Scholar searches to improve the article - but you did not make that clear to him. What he/she thinks you are asking him/her to do is to delete some of the citations, so he/she did so.[4] -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two references that can prove the credibility of hoichoi as a leading vernacular OTT platform of India. The digital landscape is extremely dynamic. But these two references from the last two years both mention hoichoi as a leading part of India's OTT landscape.

https://www.themobileindian.com/picture-story/top-10-regional-ott-platforms/9

https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/ott-platforms-for-regional-language-shows-and-movies-marathi-bengali-telegu Bitwits (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ORG Both the references are generic about the Industry and not indepth about Hoichoi, only 1/10 content is written about it which itself is not a research based content. 1st source is not even reliable. Lordofhunter (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, both the references are generic and discuss the whole industry proving that it is not self generated or material based. It is important to understand that the industry is itself a relatively new one. With a regional OTT platform introduced just six years ago, you won't get generic in-depth research. If you think every reference, and every detail that I am providing is not sufficient enough, I request you to help me with the same by providing the required details which can help to increase the notability of the platform. 27.131.209.133 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hoichoi details are also present on Over-the-top media services in India Bitwits (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. What we have here are a number of such articles which rely *entirely* on interviews or quotations filled in with generic/common company descriptions with a tendency to not talk about the *company* but about the content and/or future plans or financial performance. There was also mention of an analyst report by RBSA which I've downloaded and read - the company gets a total of two mentions with nothing in-depth about the company. None of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the platform based research article that totally describes the platform and company details in-depth: https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/hoichoi-tv-product-analysis-redesign-d2ebd48d0317 Bitwits (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reliable source - it is essentially a blog and does not have editorial standards - see WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The Vogue piece isn't significant coverage, and the interview/churnalism/PR pieces aren't independent coverage. I couldn't find anything online that would warrant a Wikipedia article on this subject at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just got two other articles with mentions of hoichoi that can be considered credible references. Here are the details for review - https://inc42.com/reports/indias-top-200-startups-financial-index-report-2023/

https://www.mica.ac.in/images/OTT/MICA%20Indian%20OTT%20Platforms%20Report%202021.pdf Tohishi Majumder (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Database entries like that are very specifically trivial coverage and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that the mica report includes the sources of info as footnotes and it is clear that the data is garnered from PR and company information. That fails ORGIND, it is difficult to see what "Independent Content" if any exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. All news are PR and promotional. As an OTT platform, the topic can be added in future with independent news. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple articles which are not intend to be promotional, as I mentioned earlier, there are many independent news articles that talks about the platform, and overall OTT business in India. Bitwits (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bitwits, judging from your various comments, you appear to be restating stuff from before even though others have explained why previous references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Here is how GNG/NCORP applies.

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. There are some particular sections you should be aware of.
WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
So references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined. We just need two good quality independent sources that discusses the topic company in detail.

So you've said on multiple occasions that there are "many independent articles that talks about the platform" but you don't appear to understand why editors here are saying that they fail our criteria for establishing notability. You appear to mean "independent" to only refer to a lack of corporate relationship between the topic company and the publisher - but that fails to consider the *content* which must also be "independent". As a last attempt to ensure nothing is being missed, can you post two links here to the two references you believe meets GNG/NCORP as described? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwits What I think he/she is means is that some references are useful for building the article, but do not count towards establishing notability. That does not mean that the references should be removed from the article. It is just they do not count in a deletion discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Sorry if that wasn't made clear. Any reference from a reliable source may be used to support the content of the article but not all references meet the standards required for establishing notability. At AfD, we're only concerned with finding the second type of sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its really helpful thanks! 45.64.237.85 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the doubts. Bitwits (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2023 (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.