Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santhwanam 2
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Santhwanam 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probable failure of the notability guideline for films, but the more pressing concern is the amount of sockpuppetry this article has attracted. I didn't think it was appropriate to tag this under CSD G5, as a few other editors have worked on this, but at least two socks have edited this, and most of the rest comes from IP addresses that have edited the same articles as the socks and geolocate to the same city, suggesting block evasion. I also have concerns about the sources, many of which look like paid promotion disguised as news coverage, and a quick look for better ones did not reveal anything promising. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Kerala. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The IPs have removed the redirect three times now despite the three editors who disagreed so I guess here we are. Sad we have to be here over SOCKing. Judging notability outside of the editor conduct, it fails WP:NFILM as there is no significant coverage. Out of the 12 sources on the page, only one could possibly be used. The rest are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pandian_Stores_2#Adaptations: of which this is an adaptation. Not opposed to Keep at all given the existing coverage. Opposed to deletion. Note: the page was accepted through the AfC process, for what it's worth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank: Could you point to the sources you believe have the most significant coverage so we can better evaluate the subject's suitability under NFILM? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a film but a TV series, so, I don't mind you and other users judging it by NFILM standards, if you wish to do so (that could make sense, actually), but in general it's GNG that applies for TV series (WP:NTV being an essay, as I am sure you know, but just stating it for the record). Among bylined articles in English you have articles like https://www.news.keralatv.in/santhwanam-2-launch-date/ (and 5-6 similar articles by the same media outlet, in English) ; in Malayalam, also bylined, this kind of things (not great journalism) https://malayalam.oneindia.com/entertainment/santhwanam-2-asianet-released-a-new-promo-video-goes-viral-here-is-how-fans-reacted-461819.html https://malayalam.samayam.com/tv/celebrity-news/actress-gopika-anil-says-that-no-one-from-first-part-is-acting-in-the-santhwanam-2/amp_articleshow/110149785.cms seem to show this is popular enough. The content of The Times of India non-bylined articles might be challenged so I won't even mention it (but I suppose you had a look). I had redirected this myself at some point, I think (I seem to remember I did at least!), but that was challenged too, apparently. There are a lot of adaptations of the Tamil (5, 6 ?) original and their mentions are regularly removed from the tables, so for me, navigation-wise, as this seems quite popular and given the basic facts (including popularity) are verifiable with various sources, either R or K are good. Also, a detail, the fact that it's Santhwanam 2 but not a real sequel, as it has different characters, makes a redirect to the Santhwanam not the best option. For me a Keep would help the reader more efficiently but I understand the current coverage is not of extremely high quality, hence the suggested compromise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out that NFILM doesn't apply — that was a silly error on my part! However, the same issue prevents the subject from meeting GNG, and the links you've shared here don't help in that regard, except maybe Samayam Malayalam. Looking at the about pages for OneIndia and Kerala TV shows that they have no editorial team, and the latter seems to be a blog run by one person. I think keeping would be out of reach here, but the target you've mentioned for a possible redirect sounds good to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a film but a TV series, so, I don't mind you and other users judging it by NFILM standards, if you wish to do so (that could make sense, actually), but in general it's GNG that applies for TV series (WP:NTV being an essay, as I am sure you know, but just stating it for the record). Among bylined articles in English you have articles like https://www.news.keralatv.in/santhwanam-2-launch-date/ (and 5-6 similar articles by the same media outlet, in English) ; in Malayalam, also bylined, this kind of things (not great journalism) https://malayalam.oneindia.com/entertainment/santhwanam-2-asianet-released-a-new-promo-video-goes-viral-here-is-how-fans-reacted-461819.html https://malayalam.samayam.com/tv/celebrity-news/actress-gopika-anil-says-that-no-one-from-first-part-is-acting-in-the-santhwanam-2/amp_articleshow/110149785.cms seem to show this is popular enough. The content of The Times of India non-bylined articles might be challenged so I won't even mention it (but I suppose you had a look). I had redirected this myself at some point, I think (I seem to remember I did at least!), but that was challenged too, apparently. There are a lot of adaptations of the Tamil (5, 6 ?) original and their mentions are regularly removed from the tables, so for me, navigation-wise, as this seems quite popular and given the basic facts (including popularity) are verifiable with various sources, either R or K are good. Also, a detail, the fact that it's Santhwanam 2 but not a real sequel, as it has different characters, makes a redirect to the Santhwanam not the best option. For me a Keep would help the reader more efficiently but I understand the current coverage is not of extremely high quality, hence the suggested compromise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank: Could you point to the sources you believe have the most significant coverage so we can better evaluate the subject's suitability under NFILM? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)