Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes


 * 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. Without prejudice toward a future Merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

List of encyclopedic information missing out from what the usual "List of episodes" should have. Includes only date of telecast and episode titles and plot; all unreferenced. The plot is also written in a advertisement manner, (What will happen?!) also gives writers opinions (However, it could have been divided into two episodes.), gives trivial info (Registration number was Mum889956671566787, Stops on Kajal's face, Stops on Malini's face, Stops on Amir's face, Stops on Koel's face). Such a garbage fan-forum article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need to, as that's not the proper analysis here; it makes zero sense to speak of the "notability of the episodes as a group" as LISTN would ask somehow separate of the notability of the series of which the episodes are parts. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a list of episodes is an integral part of the topic of a TV series, the proper standards are instead WP:WHENSPLIT and (less importantly here) WP:LISTPURP. So unless it is unverifiable (can that be the case for any TV series broadcast by a major cable network in India? the nom seems to think so, I don't know), it should either be merged to the series article or remain a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Postdlf is substantially correct. The principal guidance document is WP:SAL.  Our normal custom and practice with TV shows is to merge back to the main article (Dhoom Machaao Dhoom) or keep as a standalone list.  Bearing in mind WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, I cannot see how it could possibly be compliant with our guidelines to turn this into a redlink.— S Marshall  T/C 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you mean we should merge it back in the main article and then delete it from there as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think we delete anything that is merely unreferenced? postdlf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Practically we don't. But ideally we should. Shouldn't we? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The fact that something's unreferenced is certainly not an indication that it should be removed.  Factual, uncontroversial material should typically be kept in some form.— S Marshall  T/C 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On what basis is this all factual? Is it verifiable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll assume you're asking about WP:V, Animeshkulkarni, rather than for a discussion about the finer points of epistemology.  I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on WP:V.  I was one of those involved in drafting the current text, and it was me, personally, who wrote the phrase "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"—which I suspect is what you're alluding to. WP:V refers to contentious material.  It means anything, and I quote, "challenged or likely to be challenged".  It does not mean uncontroversial statements of fact.  Wikipedia policies are supposed to be applied carefully, thoughtfully and on the basis of good editorial judgment.  They were never meant as a way of removing perfectly accurate, non-promotional, non-defamational, copyright-compliant material from our encyclopaedia.  It is good editorial judgment to leave such material untouched and concentrate on the problematic stuff.  Unfortunately WP:Editorial judgment is still a redlink, and I wonder if my next policy-related effort should not be to make that blue.— S Marshall  T/C 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Oh! Founding father here!) I understand that "uncontroversial" statements of fact do not require sources. Here the show itself is the primary source and we have to believe in good faith on whatever is written here is true. But are our standards gonna steep so low that the whole article is okay to be unsourced? Also "uncontroversial" is a relative term. Plus i don't know if we should keep such poorly written article. Ofcourse someone can rewrite it. And someone should have do it since 2009 had it been any notable at all. Not a valid point to gauge notability, i know. There can be a new user just registering who would clean this all and make it a FL if you like. But till then do we keep such articles? Maybe your editorial judgement essay should write about this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't advanced an argument that this episode information is unverifiable or that the series is not notable. So you're using a lot of words without saying anything relevant to the issue of deletion, with a lot of simply incorrect assertions along the way (you insisted "...as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia", then you acknowledge "Practically we don't [delete content merely for being unreferenced]. But ideally we should." Then why did you insist in the first place that we did?). Now you say, "Of course someone can rewrite it." Then this AFD should be closed as "keep". postdlf (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay fine! Keep it. Amongst all the garbage some more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I cant close the AfD now as some editors have voted for deletion. Or else i would have closed it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (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.