Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godi-media

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Godi-media}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Godi-media}})

The subject is not notable enough to have its own article. Not backed by references too, only referenced by biased media outlets. clickHereToGoToMyUserPage (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: enough independent sources have covered the subject to pass WP:GNG. article is backed by references that are widely accepted on wikipedia. calling them biased needs a different discussion altogether. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: No shortage of reliable sources, far more than necessary to establish notability. The article should definitely be expanded, though. OfficerCow (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that these sources are unreliable. Included are the Washington Post and The Wire (magazine). OfficerCow (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep A term used regularly in Indian political topics, News Media and protests. e.g. [https://caravanmagazine.in/news/farmers-at-kundli-upset-over-media-misrepresentation-accusations-confront-godi-media]. Passes WP:GNG due to multiple sources covering it. Clearly backed by multiple refs in the article. Nominator seems to have political disagreements here, but Wikipedia is not a Battleground. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Although a derogatory term, notable in India and widely being used since coined. Presstitute is a close offensive eqv. RationalPuff (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.