Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switchh (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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switchh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Switchh
• Articles for deletion/Switchh (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Switchh (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. There is one review cited, but more are needed to pass notability guidelines.

Previous discussion found a review [1], but no consensus on whether or not that is a reliable source.

The result of the first discussion was "no consensus", and the notability tag remains. I am not a fan of that tag, I think that either the article should be improved to the extent that the tag can be removed, or the article should be deleted if notability cannot be proven.

Can we come to a consensus this time? Notable (keep article) or non-notable (delete article). I vote Delete DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced that this passes notability. Keep DonaldD23 talk to me 23:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The Times of India is considered marginally reliable to generally unreliable, though Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force considers it WP:RS for film reviews so whether it is reliable is borderline. Otherwise, the previous discussion linked to this review, which is from a source with an unconvincing about us page and little editorial policies, but it partners with Hindustan Times, a WP:RS. I don't think a partnership would make it necessarily generally reliable, however, the opinions of other editors might differ. Therefore, IMO this article borderline fails WP:GNG (even if both of the reviews are obviously WP:RS, WP:GNG is still, generously speaking, just borderline met). In contrast, the rest of the sources appear to be routine announcements. Additionally, none of the WP:NFILM criteria appear to be met. My WP:BEFORE search mainly found announcements or general info on the actor that are insufficiently WP:SIGCOV, e.g., 1, 2. Therefore, I'm at neutral to weak delete (leaning towards neutral). VickKiang (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as well as the Times of India review there is this piece here from national newspaper The Indian Express which is a strange mishmash of an article but I think it does count as a bylined review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s a minor announcement on a trailer, you could say that it is SIGCOV, which I disagree but can see where you are coming from. However, I just don’t see how it could be classified as a review. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it confused me as it seemed to be a review of the film but it is actually a review of the trailor so i'm withdrawing my vote Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are two reviews including this one. Regarding notability, it is owned by HT Media and they hire proper journalists. The author of the review previously worked for The New Indian Express. Other sources found: here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I should update to neutral as two reviews give (very generously) extremely borderline notability. On the other hand, this seems to be a routine announcement about the trailer, whereas this gives general coverage of an actor, quoting him exclusively but giving little direct in-depth independent coverage. So I personally don't think the latter two refs are SIGCOV but feel free to disagree here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sources above seem ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are two reliable reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus seems to be Keep and there are no delete votes and 1 neutral vote. If an admin agrees, I withdraw this nomination for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 14 December 2022 (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.