Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon Dite Chai (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla as an ATD. Consensus below is that the sourcing does not meet the threshold required for GNG. Daniel (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Mon Dite Chai
AfDs for this article:


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

WP:MILL coverage, no claim to notability Sohom (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India,  and West Bengal.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - These sources clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nilpriyo above and think the page should be kept. (So Keep). At the very least redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Bangla, (where it is mentioned, obviously).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that previous AFD was closed as "Delete". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: TimesOfIndia is not considered a reliable source especially given it's background of having accepted money for news coverage. The Hindustan Times Bangla article is WP:MILL coverage potentially bordering on promoting the show. I'm skeptical of it's notability value. No issues with a Redirect Sohom (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note about the Times of India: Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus indicates that concern about retributed coverage exists but not to the point of making it plainly unreliable. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  11:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank I'm not to familiar with the quirks behind the notability of TV shows in particular (and what can and cannot be considered reliable significant coverage), but the TOI source is very reminicent of paid for company press releases that are generally discounted when evaluating the notability of companies and such. Additionally, unless all released TV shows are by default notable (and I do not see such a wording on WP:NTV) this does not pass the "reliable" and "significant" coverage threshold in my opinion. Sohom (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree he TOI piece is not a great article at any rate but it’s more a way to verify the longevity of the series. Again, if sources are judged insufficient for a standalone page, I think at least a redirect should be considered. But I think some informations would be lost-for example the section Adptations is of interest and helps the reader navigate between remakes. If there was an article for the original Varudhini Parinayam, I would favor a redirect to it, but so far, ithat page is a redirect. And obviously, no, not all released TV shows are by default notable. Best, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect. Poor-quality promotional sourcing is not sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page contains quite important sources. which passes Wp:GNG coverage. So there is no question of deleting and redirecting this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have provided only two sources, both of which are typical WP:MILL promotional coverage. I don't see how this satisfies any notability guidelines. If you want this page to be kept, please provide reliable, independent, third-party coverage of the show. Sohom (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG, sources in the article are mill promo refs, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing looks like work provided by the marketing department of the series. No significant or in-depth coverage. The Banner  talk 13:41, 6 December 2023 (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.