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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved.
BD2412T20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Daily soap ‘Sohag Chand’ completes 100 episodes";"Did you know ‘Sohag Chand’ is the remake of Marathi show ‘SuManamadhe Bharli?’ " and "'Sohag Chand': শেষ পর্যন্ত জিতবে সোহাগ চাঁদের দল! কোন দিকে মোড় নেবে ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?"
Note about the Times of India:
The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the
Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of
Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of
WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV.
Sohom (
talk)
20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to
Colors Bangla or to the
original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The first thing I linked to in this discussion is
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--
CNMall41 (
talk)
02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I would think a show that is notable would have more press outside of Times of India but there is little. What I see is churnalism that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Like the policy or not, it is consensus and these references for this show are not reliable for establishing notability. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:31, 22 April 2024 (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.
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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved.
BD2412T20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Daily soap ‘Sohag Chand’ completes 100 episodes";"Did you know ‘Sohag Chand’ is the remake of Marathi show ‘SuManamadhe Bharli?’ " and "'Sohag Chand': শেষ পর্যন্ত জিতবে সোহাগ চাঁদের দল! কোন দিকে মোড় নেবে ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?"
Note about the Times of India:
The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the
Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of
Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of
WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV.
Sohom (
talk)
20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to
Colors Bangla or to the
original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The first thing I linked to in this discussion is
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--
CNMall41 (
talk)
02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I would think a show that is notable would have more press outside of Times of India but there is little. What I see is churnalism that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Like the policy or not, it is consensus and these references for this show are not reliable for establishing notability. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:31, 22 April 2024 (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.