Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geet (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Geet (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability other than "is popular" (without source). Could find no useful sources that might assert notability in an English (sorry, I only speak English) google/google news search. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I added some bare URL refs to the article, it does appear to be popular enough in India to have received significant press coverage.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reviewing the sources in the article: 1 is a press release, and so is discounted entirely. 2, 3, and 5 do not list actual authors of the articles in question, and are from OneIndia, a source which expressly disclaims fact checking or accuracy (see its disclaimer), and so is by its own admission not reliable. Finally, source 4 mentions the subject only in passing. I can't find anything better than this. Just providing several sources does not show notability&mdash;the sources must be reliable (discounting any source which expressly says it cannot be relied on), unaffiliated with the subject (discounting any press releases), and cover the subject to a significant degree (discounting any source which covers the subject in passing while largely talking about something else). I can't see that there is sufficient sourcing to sustain the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehh, I wouldn't count out Oneindia.in entirely. I see people going both ways in past debates, and no guidance from searching WP:RSN.  I can see past discussions where people say it is legitimate, e.g., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_3, User:Dr._Blofeld/ArchiveFebruary2009, Talk:Bollywood_films_and_plagiarism (mixed views).  But someone edited the Oneindia.in page a year ago to directly assert that it wasn't reliable (because it has copied content from Wikipedia without attribution-haha, this is actually not that uncommon, but its worse in less developed country journalism, I think)., and another editor has cited the disclaimer as proof its not a RS: Talk:Sura_(film).  It is worth noting however, that as of Dec. 2009, Oneindia was the 2nd highest traffic India-based news site (and 4th overall most visited news site in Indian visitors), even ahead of The Hindu (the 2nd most popular English print newspaper in the country): see.
 * I also found a Geet msg board and while I know that's not good for sourcing, that msg board is insanely active, which suggests that the show may well be quite popular in India.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ratings info: OK, this is fascinating. July 21 Geet forum post asserts that Geet got a rating of "1.0" on the "TRPs".  TRP appears to an acronym for "television rating point" used in India.   The "1.0" rating seemed to be cause for celebration.  In August, a thread asserts that Geet is the highest ranked show on the STAR One network.   There are many other threads discussing ratings, did I mention this forum is insanely active?--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little disheartened to see that no one looked into this. Its apparently the top rated show on this Indian TV network (the network is owned by News Corporation, btw, that's FOX, its a major network).  Since the AfD started, citations have been added from a number of India's top news sources, including The Times of India and Oneindia.in, and we've been told that this kind of coverage would be normal for a mainstream soap.  If this was an American or British show, there is no way we'd be having this debate.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the Blade's reasoning and research. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim the heck out of the plot section (yikes). The nom's concerns toward sources are addressed through a simple search which finds numerous English sources. And sorry Orange Mike... but the project is far better served by considering Seraphimblade's concerns at the very few sources in the current unimproved article, and then using the available found sources to clean up and expand using with the critical commentary found about the Indian soap opera.  Deletion of something so emminently improvable, does not serve the project... nor its readers.  Notable in India, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can certainly find mentions in that google search, MichaelQSchmidt, but are any of them substantive and asserting of notability? Things like an article about an actress who appeared on Geet, or an article saying "here's what's going to happen on the next Geet" don't really strike me as particularly useful for the purpose of demonstrating notability. Even "this actor had no job but now he's famous because he got a new job on Geet" and "Geet has 100 episodes", though more promising, doesn't really seem to me to do the job. If the sources are out there, great and I'd love to see them added to shore up the article, but I'm not seeing much of use in the first few pages of the google search you linked. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, per guideline, "substantive" is not a required criteria for sources. As Indian articles concentrate on the players and their roles, we are still able to accept that WP:GNG is met through the tremendous amount of series-related press... even with production being dealt with in a less-than-primary fashion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added a few more refs from non one-india sources (including a small review in Screen. This is a soap running in a major Hindi TV channel. It has been covered in the Times of India, Indian Express, Screen and IANS. Any coverage Hindi soaps get in the media is usually about the characters and the actors who play them. Only if the subject is controversial or there are production delays, then the coverage goes into the show itself. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the article in the current form does not establish the show's notability. Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Current state is never a deletion criteria unless the state is a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT. It IS however, a reason to use available sources to improve the article through the course of regular editing.  And big kudos to User:Sodabottle for adding additional sources to further show the series meeting WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 19 October 2010 (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.