Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karikku (2nd nomination)


 * 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. And salt - it seems like the sourcing here has not convinced anyone, the non-source dependent notability claims have also not gained support and there are concerns about the way previous delete consensuses were ignored and about whether COI or paid editing is involved. Thus salt, any recreation would require an AFC walk-through, a deletion review or something more than unilateral recreation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Karikku
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Sources are mostly unreliable and there are some passing mentions in rs, but none with a significant focus on the subject. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus and later the article was deleted at WP:DRV. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: WP:ENT does not apply here as this relates to a web series and not to people. The subject to the article is a popular web series, rated by a web analytical service, in the top 1 percent among YouTube channels, globally. The channel is a gold play button holder, which indicates its popularity. The series has also received a significant award, Mazhavil Manorama Entertainment Awards. The references in the article are from Malayala Manorama, The New Indian Express, Times of India, Madhyamam, Mathrubhumi and the like, which are all leading news agencies in India and as such, reliable third party references.--jojo@nthony (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about a Youtube channel not web series. Having a so-called silver, gold, platinum or whatever button does not grant automatic notability. I'm pining the past contestants since the last version was deleted just a few months ago. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * comment: I have serious concerns about that metrics rating and if it is being gamed. But I have no proof either way.  I am reasonably convinced the metric it is not a WP:RS.  Viewing the history shows it was regarded as different to the page deleted at AfD/DRV and survived a speedy with admin intervention.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, I was wrong, this is a YouTube Channel and not a web series but what was missed in my haste was that the channel has a number of popular web series in its kitty. Just as Djm-leighpark mentioned, the deleted article was a different one; it is there on the article history.--jojo@nthony (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I do not see any tangible improvement over what I remember from before when I nominated it for deletion, thus my prior deletion rationale stands. Social media metrics are not reliable sources for determining notability. this source is not about Karikku, this source is an interview with a lot of paraphrasing from the subject - primary sources do not establish notability, a by-line of "Pinky Baby" does not inspire confidence, another interview, this one has "interview" in the URL, same article as the previous source, just a different URL, and finally this one also has "interview" in the URL. The rest of the sources appear to be IMDB (not reliable), a YouTube link to their channel (not reliable), and a couple of YouTube metric sites. Also note that this was recreated less than a month after the prior deletion discussion, so despite this article apparently being noticeably different than the previous article (per responding to a CSD G4 request), it would seem to me that this should probably end up in the bit bucket again. Waggie (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: (see !vote below) Neutral: Delete: I've actually been looking for reasons to give a keep but have determined I'm not going to try and waste my time changing my mind and arguing against  unless  or  or anyone come up with ideally three or at least two reliable sources that don't look hyped and dont rely on that metric and I can verify in one click.  Apparent previous cut and pastes from without attribution and content forking really don't help with the ugliness or my humour .... keep one version extant and work from that.  The the draft had gone through AfC then I'd be looking for a save but the proponents don't seem to think that route is necessary.  I think is was actually  who cleared speedy delete and I guess maybe curated the page;  closed the previous AfD and  closed the DRV.  I've also had a look for some recent news items for Karriku and nothing's coming at me.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a feeble response to Djm-leighpark, I am adding below a few references, all reports in major newspapers and thus qualifying as reliable third party references, which show the popularity of the channel.--jojo@nthony (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated.  I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly.  At present I will return my !vote to neutral.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated.  I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly.  At present I will return my !vote to neutral.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated.  I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly.  At present I will return my !vote to neutral.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated.  I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly.  At present I will return my !vote to neutral.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated.  I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly.  At present I will return my !vote to neutral.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete with silver bullets and Salt with silver nitrate - This is a zombie page. It was already deleted after one of the most decisive DRV results to overturn that I have seen.  (I said to Endorse the closure, but only because the closer had not made an error.  I had originally said to Delete.)  There is no way that this YouTube channel meets general notability.  The general pattern of conduct is one of undisclosed paid editing or other conflict of interest and Terms of Use violations.  During the first creation of the article, there were multiple forms of gaming of the system, including creating two copies of the article, one in draft space and one in article space, to defeat draftifying.  An editor who had a good case would not need to resort to such tactics.  Delete and Salt.    Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt - Enough of this. This article is no better than the prior one it was trying to replace and I agree with  that this is a zombie page that strongly feels like undisclosed paid editing for sure.  Salt the page. --  Dane  talk  20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was I who created this page and that is the only reason for this invitation to pay a visit to my user page where I have listed all the articles, over 1500 in total, I have created in my wikilife of over 14 years. I am confident that such a visit would convince you that I do not do paid editing. Thanks --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Notifying participants in the DRV: User:991joseph, User:bradv, User:Paul McDonald, User:TonyBallioni, User:RoySmith, User:Stifle, User:SalmanZ, User:Alpha3031, User:DGG, User:Djm-leighpark, User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The precious metal play button is a promotional award that is similar to awards that are commonly given in the book publishing and distilled spirits industries. These awards are easy to get, because the real objective of the trade associations for the industries is to increase sales, of books or of spirits, respectively.  So the awards prove only membership in an effective trade association, and YouTube is functioning as a trade association.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I beg to differ with Robert McClenon. Play Buttons are in fact YouTube Creator Awards, awarded by YouTube when the channel achieves a specific number of subscribers. Gold play button is for a base of 1 million subscribers. The channel in reference has over 3 million subscribers. --jojo@nthony (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - despite my earlier assumption the page had been curated seems to indicate it was never curated despite creation on 22 May 2019 about 5 months ago (assuming I haven't made a mistake).  I note nom. appears to be an WP:NPP and guess this may have been a non-simples on the uncurated list.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, coverage has no roots. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article indicates the  "number of subscribers — a metric than can be gamed by bots", and as the awards are based on that they are to a degree not to be relied on in my opinion.  Neither are journalists who over-promote that metric without qualification.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There has been mention of paid editing in this discussion. (jojo@nthony) has invited scrutiny of his home page as evidence of no paid editing, and I personally opine that is not a suitable in itself for any such determination, although obviously we have contribution history as well, which perhaps gives some some input.  I do seem to note quite a number biographies of deceased persons and it it unlikely in my opinion these would have been subject to paid editing.  I note also some BLPs and maybe some organisations within the set where there might perhaps been risk of a request being made for a paid edit, but I also judge they are within the range of his normal writing interests as far as I can tell  So while Tachs/jojo@nthony probably has the skills for paid editing, as do many of us, I have no reason to assume it has occurred and WP:AGF certainly assumes it should not.  In terms of the current article  on the previously article incarnation and the draft article would be needed for further scrutiny (unless one is an admin) so I see purposes here at this AfD to determine if this incarnation of the Karikku article is fit for mainspace based on its current content and available sources.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy if needed. Almost all the references are IMDB or blogs. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please have a second look, of the 21 references, 7 are IMDb (they are used only to mark the cast and crew), 9 are from leading dailies in India and the rest are analytical tools such as Noxinluencer and Social Blade. No blogs are used as references here.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Incubate: and salt: I observe !votes seem to be ignoring the references presented in direction of the spirit of WP:THREE but are moving the focus other references instead. I am minded Karikku may be appropriate for an article.  I believe this should be recommended to be routed via AfC which should have been its pathway in the first place.  The salt is needed as persons will likely attempt to move it in anyway and draft space is the best place for collaborative working rather than problem some forks are lack of attribution that then occurs.  I believe there is likely WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG given references above and from one or two in the article but I'm deliberately not drilling or I'd likely have to !vote ... I'm actually more concerned about WP:POV and don't want in in mainspace for that and for disrespect of WP:DRV and for forking.  19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom. I am not even going to even entertain any thoughts of COI without clear evidence. I would hope and assume that an established editor would not add IMDb references. Otr500 (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMDb references, 7 in number out of a total of 21 citations, are used only for marking the lead actors of the channel. In this article, they do not substantiate any claims. I do not know if I may be called an established editor, but my experience here has taught me that IMDb may be used for citing cast and crew information from released films, Please see this. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete having a large number of subscribers does not warrant getting a article on Wikipedia. -- FitIndia  Talk Commons 08:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The channel is also a recipient of a major regional award, the inaugural Mazhavil Manorama Entertainment Award in 2019.--jojo@nthony (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and the award doesn't seem to be notable enough. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 11:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It comes from Malayala Manorama, the group which owns the most circulated Malayalam daily (the third largest circulated daily in India and the fourteenth most circulated newspaper in the world), Vanitha, the most circulated Indian magazine, and Mazhavil Manorama, one of the most popular television channels in the language. It was also the first award in Malayalam, for excellence in digital content. From a regional perspective, if this award is not notable, not many from this region are.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not grant automatic notability. Please see WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reasonably familiar with WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED, I was only trying to substantiate my claim that the award was notable. I feel WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here, as any award for that matter, is notable mainly because of the inherent merit and tradition of the award (e.g. Nobel Prize) or because of the merit of the awarding institution (e.g. British Academy Film Awards or Academy Awards. When a channel has a fair number of subscribers, when it has clocked 282 million views as recorded by internet analytic tools, when it is a recipient of a major regional award, when it can be verified as (regionally) popular from the newspaper reports, I presume that the subject of the article is notable and I was just trying to put this across. Thanks. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Reply to jojo@nthony: I applaud good faith efforts. Because YouTube, or IMDb seems to deem something notable (I didn't look at the 282 million views) then if the "world" has taken note I would think finding "reliable" sources an easy task. I do not dislike IMDb or YouTube. Like Find a Grave, IMDb is considered unreliable and battles for inclusion/exclusion as a reliable source led to Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I also do not want YouTube to be the next inundating Wikipedia project.
 * 1/3 of sources being attributed to one site is a lot. It has been mentioned more than once above. Even if I supported use as some backup content support it has been splashed on an unimaginable number actor/movie related articles. Like Find a Grave there was a project solely for that purpose. Maybe a movie has enough notable actors (all star cast) to list 7 of them but many times it is just used as a reference (adding to the count or Notability bombing) to list actually non-notable names farther down the casting list. Even if I was not against a considered generally unreliable source (a good reason to avoid any use) being used "just for content" it might have been less obtrusive had the general casting page been used "one time" not seven contributing to the "splashing all over Wikipedia". Continued excuses and arguments that "but it is only used for" does not give credence to reliability or Wikipedia being an IMDb co-listing site. I find content on both the above mentioned sites informational (so do not dislike them) but as an editor, especially since WP:BLP's are generally involved with IMDb, that these sites should be avoided. Who can actually argue that a picture of a grave site is unreliable? Much like IMDb it is the overall unreliability of the sites (not to mention the inundation on Wikipedia) not specific content that dictates not using them. Unique information not found somewhere else is a reason for accepted use in "External links" not as an unreliable source. Even at that IMDb is on nearly every actor/movie article (in "External links) regardless of any "unique" information.
 * I have been doing "External links maintenance for years without so much as making a dent but I do remove IMDb when I find it as a reference. If broad community consensus deems a site generally unreliable as a source it is probably best not to use it. If it is the only place information can be verified it probably isn't that notable. Also, in my view, the casting content on IMDb far more than likely came directly from the primary source. As an industry related repository site it is not a vetted and by our inundation we assist in breaking WP:What Wikipedia is not.
 * What you see as it does not "substantiate any claims" I see as just the opposite because it supports content related to "citing cast and crew information from released films". I would rather see the primary source only rather than an unreliable source. Not all may agree with me but apparently many do. The point is that if a more broad community consensus is against the use as a reliable source (because we are not to use unreliable sources right?) then it would be better to take this up at the appropriate place to see if consensus has changed. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.