Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karikku

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 May 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karikku

[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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Minimal sourcing, one is a YouTube video, another is an interview, and I find it difficult to take serious a source with the by-line of "Pinky Baby". I moved to draftspace awhile back and another account came in and appears to have intentionally gamed autoconfirm perm to copy/paste move this to article space again. Waggie (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search shows several articles about the group that aren't listed as refs including some from Times of India, New Indian Express, Matrubhumi and Manorama, all of which are high-ranking outlets in India. Seems to satisfy GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't note this in the deletion rationale, but I find it interesting that some of the sources seem remarkably similar. I would ask that folks look carefully at this. The words aren't the same, but the flow of the articles (specifically the Manorama article and the Madhyamam Daily article) seems very similar. I'm not sure what to make of this, and don't want to draw conclusions, but would like others to consider and form their own opinions. Waggie (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a group notable only for YouTubing, and YouTubers are seldom notable unless (like the Logans) they have received significant coverage in mainstream sources, which this group has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does the author of either this article or the draft have an affiliation or connection with the group? If so, read the conflict of interest policy and make the required declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Submitting the same draft simultaneously from two accounts in two spaces appears to be, at best, an effort to game the system. The less favorable (but equally common) possibilities are either undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have any kind of relations with the group other than I watch their videos. Also, I don't have multiple Wiki accounts. User:991joseph is my only account. This group is quite popular in Kerala as their content language is Malayalam. And they have been covered through major (regional) newspapers. --Joseph 05:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a TOU violation and the fact that almost all of the sources lack the required depth. Regional only papers don't establish notability and a lot of the sources definitely fall under WP:CHURNALISM Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more assessment of the sources, especially the potential ones mentioned by Rsrikanth05. In addition, I am not seeing a TOU violation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources don't provide an adequate level of depth as stated above. Additionally, I agree with Waggie's assessment that the flow of the articles is remarkably similar. May be worthy of an SPI regarding the multiple accounts. -- Dane ^talk 16:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more assessment of possible sources, as noted by the previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (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.