Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChuChu TV

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 keep. Seeing as the latest sources have not been contested, I'll assume that they indeed indicate notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChuChu TV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Interesting article: potentially notable, especially considering the coverage in external sources, but does a claim of 5.3 million subscribers on Youtube, justify notability in terms of broad and continuing public interest? That seems rather small in some ways, but reaches a fairly broad community -- I am torn on this one, but I think it needs discussion. Sadads (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads:You may refer this link (you tube) for viewer ship of 5.6 million. -Varmapak ^(talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep That's coverage in what appears to be two independent third-party RSes - it's unclear what the problem is supposed to be - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: I am looking at the claim of long term significance and continued interest per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTCATALOG, and the current sources though independent feel like promotional pieces. Sadads (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cooment - I believe this reference on this page [1] and this source [2] in Mint_(newspaper), hint the page could be notable if other independent sources were found. However, the other two on the page as of now are primary PR sources, and I couldn't find any other coverage on google, at least through an English-based search. Yvarta (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I would remove that typo, but I'm oddly delighted by it.) Yvarta (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta: For India related topics, you should try custom search engines listed at WP:INDAFD. Anup [Talk] 16:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Third most subscribed channel in India shall be considered as notable. This article in start class yet and It has an average page hits of 55 per day. (page hits), Leave some time to get the article updated. -Varmapak ^(talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a guide to further discussion, please note that neither the number of subscribers on YouTube, nor the number of page views a page gets on Wikipedia are useful arguments to make here. People should be concentrating on locating Reliable Sources and evaluating the sources other people have found -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Youtube hit counts are immaterial, subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. PRNewswire is not WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like it meets WP:GNG. Sources: Times of India, Livemint, Livemint2, Scroll.in, Can-India, News18, ABP News, Global Voices, iChowk, Economic Times^{(this one reads like a PR though)}, Medianama^{(interview of the founder)}. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 2 October 2016 (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.