Talk:Disney Star

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This split request is intended to separate the historical information about Disney Star and the ongoing information about JioStar. JioStar is currently a redirect to Disney Star. If this split request is approved, the redirect will be expanded to a separate article. There is currently a draft at Draft:JioStar. If the split request is approved, the draft will be reviewed for acceptance to become the article on JioStar, but this split discussion is not about whether to approve the draft, and should not consider the content of the draft.

Please comment on whether there should be two articles, one on the former Disney Star, and one on the current JioStar. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current JioStar is less than a year old and there is little information on it other than the announced merger. There would be very little information to put on a separate page for JioStar. Unfortunately, I do have to mention Draft:JioStar as this shows what I mean. There are two sentences about JioStar and the rest of the page is the history of Disney Star. Recent edits to Disney Star also conveniently change the page to "was" and "previously" in an attempt to make it seem like Disney Star is dead. The real discussion, in my opinion, is whether THIS page should be changed to JioStar or kept as Disney Star per WP:COMMONNAME with information about the merger, a discussion that we have had numerous times as noted at the top of the page.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, CNMall41

  What difference does it make whether the article is long or short? Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Disney Star is as dead as Warner Media and Discovery Inc are. It is as dead as Paramount Global and Skydance Media are. Those pages also refer to companies as "was", and there are new pages for the merged companies. Spitfire121 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes,we want separate articles for Disney Star(former) & JioStar(current) article. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is we? Also, see WP:ATD-M. Two sentences is about all that JioStar would have unless it violates WP:COAT which the current draft does. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If we split then we just have to wait for few days after that you will get to see only about JioStar Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, who is "we?" I find it troubling that you are discussing this as "work" with another editor. Do you have any connection with the company per WP:COI?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any split at this time as the present information of JioStar on its own would be a short WP:CONTENTFORK with a lot of repeated information about Disney Star, and may not be inherently notable. I do not think yet another move request would change the consensus at this time, and would rather suggest waiting a couple years before this option is weighed again to allow more time for sources to eventuate and determine if the COMMONNAME has changed or if JioStar becomes more notable on its own, without its connections to the former Disney Star. I still oppose any attempts to refactor the scope of this present article on Disney Star to become the subject of JioStar because it is a separate, new entity, and not a simple rename. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

as pointed out by @Robert McClenon, this discussion is not about the content of the Draft:JioStar. It is about whether there should be 2 separate pages for Disney Star and JioStar. Why should there not be? There is no doubt about the company's notability. There are multiple sources which refer to it as JioStar, and constantly do it so. One google search is enough to determine that. Spitfire121 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not mention the draft. I said there is not enough content about JioStar itself to warrant a separate dedicated article. That has nothing to do with the draft. Any article that duplicates material of another is a content fork, and for any JioStar article to meet WP:GNG at this point, it would have to include background details about Disney Star, which would present an unavoidable overlap of content and therefore be a content fork. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

i included the background details of Disney Star and Viacom18 in the draft, because I saw that that was what was being done in pages for Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance Corporation and many other media companies that were formed through mergers. If you feel that is such a big issue, we can delete those parts.

How are all these articles not enough for to pass the general notability guidelines? And these are just the sources of which you might have heard the name, because for you, India sources are not good enough. And this is not an exhaustive list. There are dozens of others. All you have to do is Google Search.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/disney-reliance-merger-complete-1236210028/

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/reliance-walt-disney-close-85-billion-merger-indian-media-assets-2024-11-14/

https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/stocks/reliance-disney-and-viacom18-complete-rs-70352-crore-media-merger-nita-ambani-chairperson-19509922.htm

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/disney-reliance-merger-complete-1236210028/ Spitfire121 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

•Support. It has been the norm to form new pages for a merged company. Warner Bros Discovery page was formed when Warner Media and Discovery Inc. merged. Paramount Skydance page was formed when Paramount Global and Skydance Media formed. And these are just 2 recent examples. There are numerous others.

The questioning of the company's notability is quite ridiculous. There are hundreds of articles from dozens of sources which refer to the company as JioStar. These include both Indian and American sources. You won't find any sources online referring to the company as Disney Star in the last 6 months. Spitfire121 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You will see that, for those same examples that I had noted above, there have been multiple high quality reliable sources reporting on those mergers forming a separate entity that has gotten and sustained massive significant coverage independent of their predecessors. The same cannot be said for JioStar itself. That is what the notability concerns are, not just that it exists and some sources have talked about it in part or in whole. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

supporrt Disney Star should reflects as former and Jio Star as Present company , because Disney Star not exists Kkrockstargamer (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do I feel like this random new editor may have been canvassed or could be a sock? These discussions seem to be having a pattern not based on site policy but personal or corporate agendas. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

What? You just don't want to split this article. That's it. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I gave my rationale for why a split is not sufficient at this time. This article and other related ones have had a pattern of canvassing and sock puppet accounts in similar discussions, so I think my questioning is valid. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Support "Corporate agenda" This is wrong allegation.

I suggest splitting the Disney Star article into two pages:

Disney Star (former): covering the network’s history, development, and earlier identity.

JioStar (present): covering the present brand, programming, and ongoing operations.

There is a clear break in identity and branding, making it difficult for readers to follow both histories in one article.

Each phase is notable in its own right and has substantial coverage.

A split would reduce confusion and provide readers with clearer, more focused information. Kkrockstargamer (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

My point still stands. You are a WP:Single-purpose account, so I question your assertions in this discussion and your potential bias in this matter. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on article notability and splitting. Such changes are not made just because a loud minority wants it to be done. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

How are Reuters and Variety not high quality enough for you? As for the other sources, you may not be aware, but The Hindu is considered the most trustworthy newspapers in India. The other ones like Ecomomic Times and Mint are also high quality sources. You just don't want to accept them because you havent heard of them since they are not American.

If Reliance Industries was so concerned about their branding on Wikipedia, they would have approached the top management of Wikipedia directly. They wouldn't be arguing here with editors like we are. Spitfire121 (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"You just don't want to accept them because you havent heard of them since they are not American" - I have heard of them. Please see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I would suggest you WP:DTS and read WP:CIVIL as you are unlikely to get your way bludgeoning the discussion. Wikipedia works on consensus, not repetitive arguments. You have stated your contention, now let others weigh in. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

haha you can accuse anyone of being corporate agents without any evidence, and then you want to teach others about civility. Spitfire121 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is probably not going anywhere constructive again. Lashing out at others who do not agree with suggestions is never going to yield the results people want. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I support it, Disney Star and Jiostar Should be on separate article.Disney Star name is not in use anymore. 152.58.134.233 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The repeated use of single-purpose accounts and potential canvassing for this topic and prior ones just like it makes me believe this issue will still not be solved anytime soon. The present article reflects that Disney Star no longer exists and that it merged to become JioStar, but it has still not been proven that the latter has obtained significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is required to meet notability guidelines. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I restored it to a more stable version with the use of "is" instead of "was." The issue is the name currently, not the existence of the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Reuters, New York Times, Variety, Bloomberg. How are these sources not reliable enough for you?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6415655/2025/06/17/india-cricket-kohli-dominance-england-australia/?utm_source=perplexity

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6210144/2025/03/27/football-india-popularity-super-league/?utm_source=perplexity

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-15/jiostar-eyes-india-streaming-market-slice-with-thrifty-offerings?utm_source=perplexity&embedded-checkout=true

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-04-11/jiostar-hits-200-million-paying-subscribers-in-india-video?utm_source=perplexity

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/india-jiostar-revenue-q1-ipl-records-1236465152/?utm_source=perplexity

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/india-jiostar-10-billion-content-1236386349/?utm_source=perplexity

https://www.reuters.com/sports/cricket/gupta-replaces-allardice-icc-chief-executive-2025-07-07/?utm_source=perplexity

https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/2025-us-open-dates-schedule-seeds-how-watch-tv-2025-08-09/?utm_source=perplexity Spitfire121 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I will echo what Vestrian said below. General discussion of a subject in the short term does not establish significant longterm notability. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You are attempting to argue notability for the draft JioStar, something the OP advised against. You also reverted to a preferred version showing the company defunct which you do not have consensus for. Please stop that. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now): while JioStar would eventually become notable, it's TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  There are coverage on sources such as Variety, NYT, Reuters etc. But, sources discussing about the merger won't contribute towards notablity. Also, if we eliminate the WP:ROUTINE coverage as well, there is pretty much no coverage for JioStar to pass WP:SIGCOV yet, so it fails notablity for now. Vestrian24Bio 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: JioStar and Disney Star are different names of the same legal entity. There was no merger, only a transfer of shares from Disney to Viacom18 and Reliance. Viacom18 still exists too. This can be seen from the CCI order section Proposed Combination, which is on pages 3-5 and the company's announcement of legal name change. JioStar by itself is not notable enough for a separate post 2024 article of the company to be created. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a split as above, I understand the original hesitation, but it's no longer "too soon" - this article should be split into old and new entries as suggested above. It's the second biggest streaming platform in the world, and suggesting that's "not notable" because there "isn't enough English language coverage" when India's primary language is Hindi is really short sited, when only 15% of the population speaks English. Yes, things are notable because they are covered in 3rd party sources, but with 300 million subscribers in India, compared to the USA population of 340 million people, pretending this group "isn't notable" yet... it really smacks of Anglocentrism. Denaar (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one has said there needs to be more "English language coverage" to warrant a split and the JioStar name of the new entity formed from the merger of Disney Star and Viacom18 is acknowledged and fairly sourced already. Notability is not determined by how much of a thing there is, it is determined by how thoroughly discussed it is in third-party sources. Statistics are one factor, but statistics alone do not prove notability to warrant a separate article when JioStar (the merged entity) still has a ton of overlapping material with its predecessors. It is not about perceived "Anglocentrism", and I would urge you to strike that remark in the name of WP:Assuming good faith. I personally reject that notion of regional bias, as I always try to look at everything by the facts and evidence only. I will note that, since this discussion was started, Disney CEO Bob Iger has praised the company's partnership with JioStar, which has announced AI deals with Google and Meta (per Variety, Deadline, News18, and Economic Times. I am not staunchly opposed to the inevitable content split, but I think if we get more material about it, like the information present in these most recent articles, then there will be more incentive and justification for a split to be warranted with sufficient information about JioStar itself, aside from the merger details. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I will also note that most of the subscribers of JioStar are inherited from its predecessors, so it may not be entirely indicative of long-term standing and notability of this new entity on its own. I'm not trying to find any excuse possible to oppose a split, but all aspects of notability ought to be met, and of course the company would want to prop themselves up as one of the biggest streaming platforms in the world because it inherited a ton of users. Those data metrics are coming straight from the company itself, so it is not really a solid basis for independent notability. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  You should re-read "assuming good faith", because it's about assuming other editors aren't vandals but "consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives", which is what my statement points out - the editors here are from the Anglospere and are viewing it from that perspective. Of course someone from India thinks the service should have it's own article, it's got what... 1/3 of the population using it? That's the very nature of the argument here from my eyes, that Indian users can't possibly imagine it not being seen as extremely notable because of it's impact and use... in India. Here are even more articles: , , , , . None of these are about the merger, though some mention it in passing, and none are repeats of ones I already posted on the talk page already above. Since the consensus before was "we won't rename the page to the current name because the previous name was notable" - a split is the most logical next step. Denaar (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Denaar: ROUTINE sources don't contribute to notablity, while these sources don't discuss about the merger, not all of them discuss JioStar primarily. For example, source discussing IPL broadcast or ICC broadcasting come under WP:ROUTINE sources, thus doesn't count towards notablity. Vestrian24Bio 16:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think accusing other editors of perceived Anglocentrism is constructive when we have all made our rationale quite clear that there is no bias and it comes down to the notability guidelines. If you read the good faith explanation, it refers to far more than just not assuming vandalism, but to be civil and assume others are not trying to hurt the encyclopedia. This is a collaborative effort and delicate process, so best not to get hung up on semantics and baseless claims that could be uncivil. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Denaar:, "You should re-read "assuming good faith", because it's about assuming other editors aren't vandals......" I think we have all done that, and despite such you make an accusation citing bias. I would suggest reading WP:PACT as while I cannot speak for others, that's exactly where I am at this point after at least 12 (by my count) threads asking for this move and three prior request for moves which were closed without there being a consensus to do so. I think we are in WP:DTS territory. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's time to move article to JioStar now. That would be best for us. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

For whom RachelTensions (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Then when? Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Now, Disney Star's page should move to JioStar. It is notable now you all can check out post merger article. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not how notability is determined and your edits have been reverted yet again, see the explanation in the LLM discussion below. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)