Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlock (Indian 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock (Indian Web 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)

Self published sources. do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creator has already declared a paid editor by ZEE5. Note: the user only creates article for ZEE5. Please check here. DMySon 11:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable program, fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the draft of same article is also there Draft:Unlock (film)

2405:204:A1AD:2FB7:9169:1FC6:33AD:9AE0 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has some secondary sources in the article including a review from The Times of India, a national newspaper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator is blocked as per sock puppet investigation. DMySon 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete excluding primary sources, all I could find was press releases/paid articles-advertisements for marketing of the film. Regarding the times of India review, according to a consensus achieved ar RSN, TOI is not a reliable source. imv. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable for film reviews if you read the discussion Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOI is known for promotion, and paid articles including movie reciews. In either case, WP:NFO states: [The film is notable if] it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The TOI makes it one. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Haven't seen any evidence that their film reviews have been paid for ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect them to include a statement something like "we published this article in return of covert payment from the subject, but please dont tell anybody"? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep imo it is backed up by some reliable sources. Times of india is considered as a must used source, more on less each article in the mainspace has one sources from "times". Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor recently created its account and only interested to create articles for ZEE5 programs. Also doing mass Welcome for newly created accounts. I have doubt of being Sock Puppeteer with User:KevinThomas71293. DMySon 03:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon: Well I edit wikipedia for passion and learning, I develop interested so I joined wikipedia. I'm not working with any company or getting paid for editing. If joining wikipedia means that you have to work for someone or for organization. Then I'm ready to give up my editings privilege. I'm not understanding what's wrong in it if I'm welcoming new editor with a welcome message. If I'm you believe I'm wrong, you can go ahead and block me, no need to investigate, as check user may have some other important work to do. I myself retire. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-welcoming users with almost zero edits is most likely pointless as many, many accounts created a day never become active. You may want to look at WP:WC for more information about welcoming new users. DMySon 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly promo pieces and near no significant independent coverage of the film. Times of India reviews are occassionally subject to undisclosed payments and would need additional reviews from other sources to be considered substantial. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (see below): Times of India, FilmiBeat and Binged are possibly all usable, but I'm not certain of the reliability of the last two. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: last two? The times of india has been declared as unreliable source, and paid in most cases. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: Source? I've previously read that it's reliable but I do see that it's yellow at WP:RSP. No mention that it does reviews in exchange for payment, which presumably should be part of the description if true. I notice also that its review of Unlock is negative, not that this is by itself proof that the review is independent. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Hi. it is very common knowledge in india that TOI of paid media, especially when it comes to entertainment. Talking about the negative review, it is not entirely negative, just partially enough so that viewers would still remain intrigued and go watch that movie. It is possible this review maybe be paid. TOI is considered semi-reliable for fact checking, but I think it should not be used to establish notability. Like in this case, we can use it to verify the cast, but we shouldnt use it to establish the notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, to allow substantive discussion of the sources some !voters are describing as reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Binged looks like another OTT platform which also provides news-reviews for some reason, no clue how to deal with that but it has some sort of CoI for sure and Filmibeat is a OneIndia derivative which is just plain unreliable. While it is hard to say if this one is paid for, I would not solely rely on ToI as an indicator of notability of a movie/series. The Times Group is possibly the worse offender when it comes to paid-for news in India. For example, look at this report from the Press Council. The RSP entry doesn't do enough justice to it, imv. Its pro-government stance is partly a consequence of dependence on government ads, might as well be the same as an ad agency at this point. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete per usernamekiran and Tayi Arajakate, whom I both thank for the information. Perhaps we could gather momentum to add more info to the Times of India entry at RSP, since I don't believe its description text specifically was the subject of an RfC. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, Perhaps but the discussion in the Times of India RfC doesn't seem to have mentioned this a lot so it might not be appropriate to add it without another RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:10, 2 August 2020 (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.