Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamar Durga


 * 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aamar Durga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

How can we allow such idotic stuff to exist escapes me....Absolutely no indepth coverage... It was one of the BEST serials running in this period, not only showcasing new talent alongside established ones, but the quality of histrionics and the pace of the serial was a refreshing change from the drab regressive pseudo-religious or farcical family soaps dished out elsewhere. The show was suddenly and unfortunately discontinued on October 21, 2017 after its 553 episode — FR+ 07:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've removed the blatantly POV lines from the article. While I agree it's unfortunate the lines lasted several months, that doesn't really answer the question of notability. WP:NTV says that "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", which this show seems to satisfy. More conclusive would be better sourcing, which is a little difficult since most of the relevant articles seem to be in Bengali. But Ebela, which seems to have a print component and editorial control, has several articles on the show, including and . I found several more passing mentions of the show related to its positive portrayal of women in other reliable outlets. MarginalCost (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * -I am a native speaker of Bengali. Among the two sources one is an interview of actors and actresses the other is the typical coverage almost every serial gets before its launch. As per WP:GNG we need in-depth and sustained coverage by reliable secondary sources. Can you just link the many reliable outlets which have covered the subject of the article in either Bengali or English.(It could be a filter bubble problem that I am having) — FR+ 17:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I am relying on Google translate. The second article did indeed include video of a chat, but also had several paragraphs of original content above. (I already omitted an Ebela article that was solely an interview.) The more passing mention I was thinking of was the Times of India, though now looking back it seems the other articles I saw were about other uses of the phrase, not the TV show. Still, other articles include another Ebela article (autotrasnlated), and Tellychakkar.
 * I agree that these articles are not as in-depth as would be ideal. (I will point out that, contrary to your quote, "in-depth" is not part of the GNG, but "significant" is.) But they are above the threshold for WP:ROUTINE, as they evaluate the merits of the work, and in some cases comment on its significance - they're not just a listing of air times and cast members. Combined with WP:NTV's guidance for widely-aired shows, I think the best move is to keep. MarginalCost (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the TellyChakkar source is reliable. They seemed to be focused more on bringing the latest gossip to the reader rather than verifiability. We seem to disagree on whether the interviews contribute towards notability or not. The Times of India article is exactly the sort of coverage that is needed but one source does not add up to much. Lets see what other people think — FR&thinsp;+ 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 09:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.