Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potol Kumar Gaanwala

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. This doesn't preclude moving to draft. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potol Kumar Gaanwala[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable tv serial. There are numerous tv serials broadcast in indian tv like this. This is not a special one. Also there is no reliable secondary source for notability. Mar11 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience.Lukerian (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But if it aired on Star Jalsha, would that not meet meet WP:TVSHOW as a national cable channel that is "the number one Bengali channel in India and is also very popular in Bangladesh"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Star Jalsha is indeed the leading or a major Indian Bengali-language cable channel, as its article states, it meets WP:TVSHOW. India is a country of several major language groups. We're not going to penalize the show (or the channel) for not attracting, say, Hindi viewers for a Bengali programme. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead at best because this is still unsourced and this is actually a common occuence with these articles, unsourced and it often seems the author will not improve it themselves or not thoroughly. Draft for these improvements and then examine afterwards. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - Poor quality at best. This series has potential important to Wikipedians, but this article needs improvements. George Ho (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2016 (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.