Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradeep's Pelli Choopulu


 * 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Pradeep's Pelli Choopulu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources given for article, nothing to indicate this show is notable in any way.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. No sources and no significance. w umbolo   ^^^  12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm finding a few possible sources but I'm still not entirely sold on the notability front. Even Pradeep Machiraju, the supposed celebrity host/bachelor of the show, only has three dubious looking sources on his own page. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Maa. There are sources that have provided the coverage. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; I'm also not opposed to redirect Spiderone  13:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Though I do feel like this could pass a WP:BARE looking at the posted sources, still those include: what a XYZ person said on twitter, list of the cast and the only *reliable lookin* source comes from a site that does not even have a Wiki page, so even there the question how much is it reliable or notable? Overall, fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 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.