Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series) (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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsourced for 2-3 years. fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:NTVNATL Karnataka (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India,  and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep - enough coverage i think  Aspiringeditor1  (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Aspiringeditor1@P.Karthik.95 can't seem to reply to the other comment, the Times of India is usually seen as being unreliable due to accepting payments for positive coverage. Furthermore IMDb is also not reliable and is correctly in the external links section on the article. Furthermore, in my opinion www.exchange4media.com seems to be routine coverage that only summarises the plot of the article, and I'm not sure about the reliability of this source.
 * Ignoring these, I'll give my view of the remaining sources that have been added:
 * Source 4 is routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary
 * Source 5 seems to be a tabloid source. Ignoring this, only 1 and 1/2 paragraphs talk about the subject and is only speculation of why the serial ended as well as the name of some cast members and director
 * Source 6 is also routine coverage that also lists the cast, the director, and a mini plot summary
 * Source 12 is routine coverage that talks about how the serial is doing as well as pictures of the episode and other minor plot details.
 * Karnataka (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Karnataka i don’t blame you, but i feel like some articles on ToI actually focus on the topic in question, regardless of notability.  Aspiringeditor1  (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was stating that the ToI is unreliable and not the detail of the topic - I linked the page where I got information from (WP:TOI) Karnataka (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to review most recent addition of sources against RS Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep new reference added, WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India, ,  , www.exchange4media.com , IMDb . sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep, with thanks for the work that has been done on the article since nomination. My reading of WP:TOI and the linked RFC is not that the TOI is excluded from consideration (outside of political topics) but that it should be approached with some caution. I don't see any particular reason for it to be wholly discounted here. While the nom has characterized the Oneindia article in source 12 (now footnote 13) in the article as routine coverage, I think it is sufficiently in-depth that it should not be discounted under WP:ROUTINE (and also, from the little I can glean, there is some interesting commentary on the respective popularities and motivations of the shows involved in that crossover episode). Oneindia is not currently on RSP but a previous discussion on RSN was generally positive. There are numerous other OneIndia articles on the show from the same writer, e.g., , . There doesn't seem to be a lot to work with here, and I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the sources, but overall it seems that there is enough to likely meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2023 (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.