Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaushiki (web series)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushiki (web series)

[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)

Tagged for WP:NWEB since 2019. Seems to be too many citations (WP:CITEKILL) - every statement seems to have a bunch of them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and India. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Added a review. DareshMohan (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the 8 sources given ever proved the significance of the show. Sources 1, 5, 6 and 7 are more of promotions instead of independent coverages; Source 2 has no record of the subject in question; Source 3 is behind paywall, and from the title it reads like a promotional material as well; The video in source 4 didn't load for me so it's unclear; and the source 8 only provided two suspiciously identical ratings and an anonymous written review, with no indication of how many people participated in the scoring and no user written reviews. I wasn't able to find any other review about this series that does not read like promotion, and the only proof of significance that I can find is the 341 rated score on its imdb page. Does not meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This review is not anonymous, it is written by critic Archika Khurana. Either way, no other reviews found. DareshMohan (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has low inclusion standards and this show is not meeting them. I agree with Tut above - the reviews either are promotional copy or they are derived from it without obvious new critical review. I am always surprised when a production has the budget to sponsor the creation of an entire video series but not the foresight to do outreach to critics to get some kind of review published. Wikipedia relies on sources though and I am not seeing the sources here. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2022 (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.