Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athang

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. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athang[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)

Fails WP:GNG, with one source being from IMDb (considered unreliable) and the other a blog. A draftification was contested. There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These [1][2][3][4] are some of the better sources online. I am leaning towards delete, but I'd like an evaluation from some more experienced editors. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (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!} 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a film it'd only need "2 reviews" to pass (WP:NFILM), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources. I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD. The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG. The other 3 sources aren't great. 2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent. 4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 26 June 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.