Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinndoor Tere Naam Ka

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinndoor Tere Naam Ka[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)

Non-notable 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 17jiangz1, Why are you want delete all the pages from wikipedia. Please don't delete pages like Sindoor Tere Naam Ka, Iqbal Azad, etc. If you find some faults in these pages, you can improve this pages. But please do not delete this pages. Kaitudi (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that the article title seems to have a typo in it (should only be one N it looks like), so please keep this in mind when looking for sources. I am also not sure that the nomination sufficiently expounds on the reason for deletion, considering how many episodes of the show were produced. matt91486 (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I've found an additional independent verifiable source: [1]. I've added this to the article. It is also mentioned on a Google Books result: Business World, 2006, Volume 25, pg 53 [2], where it is listed as one of the reasons that Zee TV's network viewing statistics have increased during the time period. ~~However, if this is closed as no consensus or keep, it should be moved to the correct name and have one of the Ns in "Sindoor" removed.~~ Moreover, let's be honest with ourselves -- if this were an American TV show that aired 500 episodes on a Network with wide distribution, we wouldn't ever have this conversation. We need to be cognizant of WP:BIAS concerns relating to which sources are easily available online. matt91486 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended above comment about the spelling -- I shouldn't pretend I'm an expert in transliteration, and the title page image on the article does have two Ns. I will say that the search results are clearer with one N. But perhaps a redirect is sufficient. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." This is a soap opera broadcast for two years on Zee TV, a national channel in India. I don't have the expertise to know where the good sources are for Indian soap operas so I don't have a good GNG defense, but since there's essentially no stated rationale for deletion, I think NTV is a good enough defense. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTV's purpose in that statement is to suggest that reliable sources may exist. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. So let's take a look at what we already have: the first is a trivial mention, the second is a far more trivial mention. The second source is actually about an actress being topless on a beach, and as a passing mention it says that she acted in the show. It takes up exactly 4 words of the article, and solely in name. So, considering the state its currently in, we don't meet notability. The next question is can it meet notability? It's a 2005-07 show; I can't find sources with a quick search, but recognise some may not be in English. Unless sources can be shown in this AfD, I think it probably doesn't have the significant media coverage required and should be deleted - we aren't IMDb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given a paaragraph in this book in the context of media gender stereotyping, and discussed Busineess Week as a hit show helping to turn the fortunes of Zee TV. There's more than can be seen in that snippet, see this from the previous page of the journal. I agree that there may be some systemic bias going on here due to the difficulty of searching for Hindi language sources. Having said that, the sources one tends to find from India are trash celebrity-worship articles. India does not seem to produce the fandom encyclopaedias of soap operas that we get in the West, leading to a lack of decent reliable sources for programmes that may nevertheless have a huge, dedicated following. SpinningSpark 23:06, 5 July 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.