Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeta Aur Geeta (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. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 18:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta Aur Geeta (TV series)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A stub article that fails to meet Wikipedia:GNG and does not cite a single reference to verify its contents. The said series is an exact remake of the movie of the same name it is inspired by, on whose page its existence and important info regarding the series have been noted. This completely eliminates the need for a stand alone article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not have any articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded and improved the article with reliable references and information. Noobie anonymous (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. This is sufficiently referenced now. matt91486 (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet GNG now Spiderone 22:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the notes above, and the additions to references that have been made. Going forward, I would recommend that the nominator consider additional sources that might exist (and not just base their nominations on the references that have been included in the article) before triggering an AfD process. This could have been handled with tags on the page to expand sourcing. e.g. Sources Exist tag. Ktin (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying to Ktin (talk · contribs): My nomination is not completely based on the lack of references in the article and I still stand by it as I don't feel that a stand-alone article is required for the series. The article does not contain anything that makes it notable and distinct from the movie it based on. The primary information in the article; cast names and broadcast history (90 episodes instead of 260) can easily be convered under a section of the parent movie. Also, the article has an average traffic of less than 500 views per month and majority of the edits to the article since the show's conclusion in 2009 have been either template fixes or vandalism, which would have basically made tagging for clean-up useless. However, if the general consensus is towards keeping the article then so be it. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Sunshine1191, I think there is a misunderstanding. When you say "converted under a section of a parent movie," I think you might be missing the point that there is no parent movie. This is an independent series. Also, I don't agree that traffic views should be a reason to delete an article. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ktin (talk · contribs) No...it isn't. Seeta Aur Geeta is a 1972 Indian movie with Hema Malini playing the double role of twins separated at birth. The above stated series is an exact frame to frame remake of that movie with nothing distinct. That is the entire reason why I started this discussion. The reason I mentioned the traffic views is that in your entry above you stated that instead of starting an Afd, tagging for sources would have been wiser. The point I was trying to make is that for a page with less viewers as this one, improvement tags generally go unnoticed for years on end, which makes adding them useless.Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sunshine1191, I see what you are saying. You are suggesting a remake / adaptation. But, I wouldn't call it a parent movie, and no fundamental relation between the two other than one taking the story of the other. I dont think that will be reason to club the articles. Irrespective, I think this article has references as pointed above (and now in the article) that indicates that this notable as a television series. That is my perspective. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have further added references and contents and also listed few related categories.Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (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.