Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamil Rockerz (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 keep. I reverted an article page move because changing article titles mid-AFD complicates AFD closures and relistings. Go ahead and move the article although it might warrant a talk page discussion first. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamil Rockerz (web series)

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

Twice disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ, only primary sources 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article lacks a Reception section or any other coverage of the series by independent sources, and so does not pass general notability or web notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to originator - Did you really think that you would win the move war? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Consensus isn't really clear - both arguments seem to hold some wait. Relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete. This web series has released already.
 * Keep. So many reviews (here, here, here, here, here and here). Did you not do a WP:BEFORE?  It is important to add reviews before creating articles. DareshMohan (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:DareshMohan - Did you not read Before nominating: Checks and alternatives before asking me whether I read it?  If you ask a question about a guideline that is not applicable, you can ask a truly useless question.  Those are suggestions or instructions for the nominator.  Or did you not read the AFD before deciding who to rebuke?  I am not the nominator.  That guideline doesn't apply to Delete !voters other than the nominator.  This article was moved to draft space twice, by User:Dan arndt and by User:Eagleash, and was both times moved back to article space without adding the reviews.  I was not being asked to improve the article, but to decide whether, in its current condition, which is evidently the condition that the author likes, it should be kept.  If the Reception section can be added within five days, a Heymann close is in order.  In the meantime, you asked a wrong question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has the potential to develop well. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- sources listed in the AFD by DareshMohan are sufficient for establishing notability. Sources do not necessarily need to be added to the article before closure, per NEXIST. Obviously, the article would improve if they were added, but that's not a matter for AfD. matt91486 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And in this case, it looks like they have been added to the article already, so that distinction I drew is moot anyway. matt91486 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the number of reviews that appear to be from fine sources. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by DareshMohan. Series has been the main subject of multiple independent critical reviews in RS. Lastly, @ your whole attitude and argument needs to be rethought in light of our actual written notability and editing policies. Please read our policies at WP:GNG, WP:NNC and WP:NEXIST and Editing policy (particularly WP:IMPERFECT and relatedly WP:STUB). The current state of an article has zero impact on evaluating notability and whether or not an article gets deleted or kept at AFD. The lack of coverage within a given topic in a wikipedia article is never a valid reason for deletion per our policies. 4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * @ -- could you clarify what you were looking for when looking for a consensus? There's only one delete vote, which was explicitly contingent on the article not having a reception section, which was added to the article after nomination. All of the rest of the votes are keep. matt91486 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Matt91486 To be scrupulously fair, there are two delete opinions expressed. The nomination is also to delete. But I do see a consensus to keep the article. The relisting surprised me, too, @Taking Out The Trash, but it does no harm. There is no deadline, and whatever the consensus it will prevail. All that has transpired is a delay of a few days. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right on both counts -- it's not a big deal, ultimately. matt91486 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Matt91486 When looking for consensus one must look at the policy basis for the arguments. A major challenge is not to analyse the article itself and its references. If one does that then a !vote is the better option than closing (or re-listing), because a supervote is not considered an unbiased outcome. The consensus I see is narrow on a policy basis, and against the nomination. It was probably closable, but Wikipedia loses nothing by the relisting, and a fuller consensus may yet be formed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:36, 4 October 2022 (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.