- 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 delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Unarvugal
- Unarvugal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable, no reliable sources. Borderline spam. Huon ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete yes there's No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. The article is about an average soap opera and does not seem to be notable at all. Also it just contains an incomplete plot summary that is worded like an advertisement and seems to be original research and showing personal views of a, seemingly, fan. King Of The Wise ( talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (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.
- 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 delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Unarvugal
- Unarvugal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable, no reliable sources. Borderline spam. Huon ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete yes there's No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. The article is about an average soap opera and does not seem to be notable at all. Also it just contains an incomplete plot summary that is worded like an advertisement and seems to be original research and showing personal views of a, seemingly, fan. King Of The Wise ( talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (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.