Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumkum Bhagya - Sawan Mahotsav
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Despite the unorthodox nomination, there's strong consensus here that the sources are of insufficient quality and quantity to support an article. All of the keep arguments are essentially, "the nomination is bogus". While that justifies a WP:TROUT for User:Dharmadhyaksha, it's clear that people were willing to look past that. The arguments to delete are mostly detailed analysis of the sources which show why they are lacking.
If anybody wants to create a redirect, they're free to do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kumkum Bhagya - Sawan Mahotsav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The real WP:Bullshit bullshit! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Given the sources already cited, you are going to have to do better in your rationale than a mere slang assertion that this is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rectified the rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you really have not. You need something that is supported by Wikipedia:deletion policy, which that is not, at all. Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Rectified the rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Someone who knows the topic will understand that the article is really bullshit and thus understand the rationale as well. Am thinking you have no experience of Indian TV show related articles. So if you would just wait and allow others to chip in.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you need to provide a rationale that makes sense to editors that don't understand the subject. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Someone who knows the topic will understand that the article is really bullshit and thus understand the rationale as well. Am thinking you have no experience of Indian TV show related articles. So if you would just wait and allow others to chip in.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per refusal of the nominator to explain their nomination, or provide a policy-based rationale, after repeated requests to do so. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 1. " The nominator ... fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection". An article that has a reference from The Times of India is clearly not WP:COBBLERS or any other form of Nonsense, so no policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are reliable; the ToI and DNA source. The ToI source however is just a photo gallery leaving the DNA source the only one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete However, nominator fails to give argument but that doesn't mean this page is good. Fails WP:GNG and page is obviously bullshit. -- Harshil want to talk? 14:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Dharmadhyaksha:Can u give me a sensible reason for nominating this page for deletion, and why did u call it BullshitPallaviharsh (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT Nomination does not follow procedure. Nomination is insufficient and not based on WP:POLICY Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - while I disagree with the nominator's rationale, the article does lack reliable sources - if we discount the two YouTube links (WP:NOYT), all the other refs are press-release style mentions announcing the series as upcoming, even The Times of India refers to "The upcoming episode" - there is nothing to show that the series is notable or has "received significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we have a nomination with no valid reason for deletion, some reasonable keep arguments based on the nomination, and a couple of subsequent assertions that the subject fails WP:GNG, with no real evidence of having searched for sources (just looking at the sourcing in the article is not sufficient to decide that no sources exist), but sufficient to prevent a speedy keep closure. We really need some better contributions here - please state why you believe the subject is notable/not notable, and how you have arrived at that conclusion, ideally with reference to policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Right now, we have a nomination with no valid reason for deletion, some reasonable keep arguments based on the nomination, and a couple of subsequent assertions that the subject fails WP:GNG, with no real evidence of having searched for sources (just looking at the sourcing in the article is not sufficient to decide that no sources exist), but sufficient to prevent a speedy keep closure. We really need some better contributions here - please state why you believe the subject is notable/not notable, and how you have arrived at that conclusion, ideally with reference to policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- delete While I condemn the method of nomination, I would like to evoke "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"; having said that, I would recommend taking a look at the subject's notability rather than discussing the nomination.
I didnt know about the show. When I read the article, I thought it was some sort of reality show, covering the cast of the original show. An internet search revealed it is a crossover. The subject didnt receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the coverage is from telly-sites. They try cover to cover everything and anything related to television. To establish notability, WP:PERSISTENCE is also required; the subject fails this as well. The ToI source being discussed, was published before the show was released. I couldnt find any RS covering the show after it was released. It didn't receive reviews from well-known critics, nor any awards. Basically it is just another show. Overall, the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
deleteFails per WP:GNG. First two sources are just promos of show, IWMBuzz is discussed here and the other sources are either photo galleries or "in universe" gossip articles which are not at all helpful in establishing notability. Sid95Q (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)- Redirect I agree with Miching, Redirect it to the the section Kumkum Bhagya#Television special as the topic is not notable enough for a page of it's own. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- What about other sources that may exist but which are not currently cited in the article - where did you look and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The other sources which are available elsewhere are Another slideshow from Tellychakkar which is not considered reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and Bollywoodlife which has been discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Bollywood_Life. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- What about other sources that may exist but which are not currently cited in the article - where did you look and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Given that this appears to be a special edition of Kumkum Bhagya, would it not make sense to merge or redirect there (where it is already mentioned)? --Michig (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- it doesn't have enough coverage in RS for a redirect either. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why would it need a certain amount of coverage in reliable sources just to be redirected to the article on the series? --Michig (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Michig: otherwise anything/anyone that has a very little coverage in RS, or a good coverage in non-RS would get a redirect to something? eg: non notable actor getting a redirect to the film with most screen-time. This might later result in "verifiable existence = redirect". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, /no/ RS are needed for a redirect. Redirects are cheap and are just search aids - see WP:RPURPOSE - and if they are useful for the reader, primarily that they are mentioned in the target, then there should be no objection to their creation. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Michig: otherwise anything/anyone that has a very little coverage in RS, or a good coverage in non-RS would get a redirect to something? eg: non notable actor getting a redirect to the film with most screen-time. This might later result in "verifiable existence = redirect". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why would it need a certain amount of coverage in reliable sources just to be redirected to the article on the series? --Michig (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- it doesn't have enough coverage in RS for a redirect either. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kumkum Bhagya#Television special. I don't see this series as being encyclopaedic enough for its own page but it is plainly a useful search term ("redirects are cheap") and the target can be expanded somewhat if reliable sources are found. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2019 (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.