Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yug (TV Series)

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. Michig (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yug (TV Series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable, short-lived TV series. The article is mostly plot related original research. - Mr X 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferences! Yes, as of now. Non-notable? The criteria for notability of TV shows considers every TV show as notable if it is aired on a national television. While this show was aired in 1997, i dont think there were any other channels at all in India. Short-lived? Whats that supposed to mean? Btw, do you how many episodes were aired? If you know that could go in the article. What is plot related OR? Plot sections of TV shows and films don't require references. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a notable Indian show (like Shaktiman, Chandrakanta etc). But, I don't know how to collect newspaper references which I read 1997-1998. Most of Indian newspapers archives don't go back to that period! --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this that "Yug Badla, Badla Hindustan" serial? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that's the serial with a splendid track Yug Badla, Badla Hindustan. Was very popular one time! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider in the guideline (WP:TVSERIES) is "... a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." I'm skeptical about a series that only ran for a single year. A larger concern is that, if the article was written without any references, purely from the editor's memory, then it falls into the realm of unverifiable, original research. - Mr X 13:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, systemic bias. And unfortunately I do not have much evidence (since it is from pre-internet era). The nominator has told this series may not be notable since it ran for a single year. Perhaps true for American TV series. However, many Indian TV series ran for 13 or 26 episodes (telecast once a week for 13 or 26 weeks), and remains embedded in the mind of millions of people. TV came much later in India compared to US. It is only in the late 80s that gradually TV started to have substantial viewership. Of course this series is not as notable as Mahabharat (TV series), but still it was a popular TV series.

I agree that the lack of sources make it difficult to prove (documentary proof) that it is not original research. Objectively speaking, I can not deny that without references, it continues to be unverifiable. However, the collective memory of a number of editors (who either saw the series or were around when the series was aired) can be considered (subjectively) as a testimony to its existence, pending objective proof.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can definitely be found in newspapers like Sanmarg, Dainik Bhaskar etc... of 1997-98. But how to collect those newspaper? I wish to have an "Expert help" lifeline here like Kaun Banega Crorepati! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can not collect archives of those newspapers. For now, we have added some references in the article, for the proof of its existence, and that it was aired in Doordarshan, the national TV channel. I increasingly feel that some guidelines need to be modified or relaxed for non-US or non-European countries. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suddenly started getting so many references. And a good thing about them is that they are all encyclopedic; not random modern shows she-celebrated-her-birthday-on-set crap. Definite keep. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent sources added by User:Dharmadhyaksha. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2012 (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.