Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iniya (TV 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. Star Mississippi 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iniya (TV series)[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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources. DreamRimmer (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is still airing. WP:GNG have added references from Maalai Malar [1] and [2], Zee News (Zee Tamil News) [3], The Times of India [4], and Sun TV Website [5] and more coverage in Tamil language. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how 'important updates in the future' establishes the source's current notability, this article heavily relies on routine promotional updates as sources. I've posed my opinion of a source eval below:
- Source 1 is mainly interview quotes about the serial reaching 100 episodes (link 24)
- Source 2 is self-published with reliability and the expertise of the author unestablished and has various spelling mistakes
- Source 3 is self-published with reliability and the expertise of the author unestablished
- Source 4 is about the actress
- Source 5 probably looks like the original version of a machine-translated source 3, removing source 3's credibility. This source mainly promotional news on the serial's release (link 21)
- Source 6 is also about the lead actress (link 23)
- Source 7 is once again about the actress, also seems to be a tabloid source that's just a routine update
- Source 8 is from the same website, and the main topic seems to be the lead actors, I don't think this source is reliable
- Source 9 is a paragraph on the lead actor (link 22)
- Source 10 is once again routine promotional news on the lead actress, with a small snippet of the story plot with no further information
- Source 11 is a TV schedule that has one paragraph on the plot summary
- Source 12 is routine update on TV schedule and lead - this serial replacing another. Does not have any useful information other than a link to the serial's promo. States that timing info's going to released soon
- Link 25 is from the channel airing this serial, therefore not independent of the subject.
Like @DreamRimmer has stated, there are a lot of sources. However, none explain its notability as a subject on Wikipedia. Karnataka (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Karnataka clearly demonstrated, the existent sources on the article don't offer the significant coverage, so the article doesn't meet general notability criteria.Ertrinken (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, please add your thoughts on the IRS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is routine, extremely brief, or as noted by Karnataka, buzz about the lead actress. -- asilvering (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Karnataka's source evaluation here. They are reliable sources, but the coverage of the show itself is generally glancing or just promotional news republished. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:13, 28 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.