Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahe Tera Aashirwad


 * 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 all, topics fail WP:N, limited contribs of editors making keep comments is also noted. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahe Tera Aashirwad

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N and does not assert notability. G-hits bring up little secondary content. Leonard(Bloom) 23:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. This is a redirect. Did you mean to list this at WP:RFD, or did you mean to nominate the target, Rahe Tera Aashirwaad?


 * Delete per nom, along with the following related articles:
 * Sajid’s Superstars
 * Mohe Rang De
 * Jeevan Saathi
 * Balika Vadhu
 * Bandhan Saat Janamon Ka
 * Note that according to Colors (TV channel), the channel on which these shows appear was launched this month, and these pages may be a result of preliminary enthusiasm for the channel. We really must wait for notability. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: My mistake: the target of this AfD is the article, not the redirect. Leonard(Bloom) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, chaser - t 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple google news result turns up many turns up plenty of results for the show. I would say that it meets general notability guidelines. —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I may be out on a limb here, but the above may well be an attempt to drum up some publicity on the programs (a SEO attempt of sorts). the programs are too new to have a serious fan following and if u see the editor's contribs, you'll see they are part of a concerted effort to put up these programs. I feel it is too much a coincidence that the same editor has interest in these various diverse programs on the one channel. Definite lack of good faith here. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some more looking around. For e.g Look at this Balika Vadhu and ; Mohe Rang De and Direct lifts. Definite lack of good faith and potential conflict of interest. I say delete the entire lot. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think atleast a few of the shows yield good number of google results Balika Vadhu Mohe Rang De Rahe Tera Ashiwaad so it should not be deleted because they meet general notability guidelines.
 * Btw Chirag, I'm not at all related to the channel in anyway. That doesn't make any sense, just because i created the articles of programs which air on the same channel doesn't mean i did so to give publicity to the channel or any of it's shows. I created them just because they didn't have any existing articles. I have made equal contributions for shows airing on other channels too like NDTV Imagine and 9X you can check. the articles are not entirely direct lifts either. Samira 2008 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The results all appear to be press releases. Do you have particular ones in mind which cover the channels independently? « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck, wikipedia community is willing to delete a star wars fan film because there were no credible references. Why should these programs be an exception. There is still the matter of copyright violations. Direct lifts from the website and pres release is weird to say the least. rewrite and cite from notable sources and they could stay. In this form, it should be deleted. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Balika Vadhu results in India: 1. Youtube (promo of the said program), infact if you go deeper into the uploader of the said video, it takes u into another can of worms, 2. colorstv (hardly neutral), 3. TelevisionPoint (the only one close to being referable, but it talks about the upcoming program) 4. buzz18.com (same family of media companies) 5. Video masti (on Blogspot) etc. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rahe Tera Ashiwaad results in India: 1. apnicommunity.com (the page 404'd) 2. ironically it is wikipedia (which makes u wonder, if that was the idea) 3. colorstv.in (hardly neutral) 4. businesswireindia.com (press release) 5. telly buzz (on a forums site) 6. telegraph India (this site is credible, but it appears in the press releases section and as such is just a copy of the businesswire release). ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, The channel Colors (TV channel) has good trps which means it has good overall viewership which is slightly higher than other new channels NDTV Imagine and 9X.No, i'm not saying so because i want to promote the channel but it's a matter of fact.

Atleast Balika Vadhu yields good google results.take a look at these results of Balika Vadhu : Hindustan Times Interview(Well Known Newspaper's Website). Tellychakkar Interview Another Tellychakkar Article Popular Website hosted by indiantelevision.com.DeccanHerald a Noted Website Buzz18 Review on the Show there are lot more results but i can't mention them all at once.

Results for Rahe Tera Aashirwaad : Deccan Herald Indya.com Official Website of Star Network of India Indiatimes (Noted Website).These shows are new still have fine number of results.

Finally, for most searches wikipedia articles come at the first page because the site has good search engine ranking so nothing new about it.Samira 2008 (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2008 (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.