Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitraloka.com

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chitraloka.com

[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)

The sources are mostly not about the portal. Extremely poor and superficial coverage, delete. Tls9-me (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article [1] is entirely about the website. It may seem to mention the name Chitraloka a few times but ctrl-f Veeresh and the source tells the whole back story behind the website. This website was the only website reporting the full details of the Kidnapping of Rajkumar in 2000 [2]. Also, "the first website to be solely focused on Kannada cinema" gives unique notability. DareshMohan (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strong keep per DareshMohan. This says it was one of only two websites giving frequent news about Kannada cinema in the early 2000s. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete article based on passing mentions and lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I added [3], [4] [5], which were fully about the website and removed the passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I’m a bit doubtful about how independent those pieces are but they are much more substantial coverage so I’ll strike my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional references identified in this discussion that show significant coverage about the website, so that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2023 (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.