Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chashni (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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. On balance, the Delete arguments carry more weight, but they do not rise to the level of a rough consensus to take any action, including redirecting. Improvements in sourcing made to the article during this monthlong AfD bring hope that by the time the page is eligible for renomination, that would not be necessary. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Chashni (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India.   (talk | contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These references   are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second  this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference  tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these   and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I couldn’t find reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV for a notability claim. Contributor892z (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to an article listing the channel's original media. Having reviewed the citatitons identified by Imsaneikigai, none of them include significant coverage of the subject itself, comprising either softball interviews with actors or promotional pre-release coverage. What we need are critics' reviews, or articles that otherwise comment on the substance and significance of the show; this is lacking after three relists. signed,Rosguill talk 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: No objection to a consensus Redirect to StarPlus. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:HEY, article substantially improved since nomination, with bylined articles published in rather reliable media covering the production, so that deletion is quite unnecessary in my view. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:36, 12 May 2024 (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.