Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu Puran (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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Vishnu Puran (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources establishing notability and most of the article is just a recap of individual episodes. Should be relegated to a mention on the disumbgation page for the topic Zubin12 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but... I highly doubt this doesn't meet GNG. The Times of India says Bharadwaj is still known for his portrayal of Vishnu in this and its (admittedly somewhat better-known sister series) Mahabharat almost two decades on. As apparently do Bollywood Life and The Indian Express: if a notable actor is notable primarily for playing a particular role in a particular franchise, then surely that franchise is if anything more notable, no? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I stand by my assertion that this topic is probably notable, but it seems our biggest guns haven't been able to solve its problems or even make even piecemeal changes without inserting unsourced content or misreading sources. I would be open to a redirect to B. R. Chopra or Mahabharat (1988 TV series) or some other such potential target pending someone with better access to sources putting together a decent article. I suspect eleven years ago I could have put together something better than what I did, but not now, and it doesn't seem anyone can, at least in the short run. I would prefer this discussion not be relisted again or closed as "no consensus" just because only three people have !voted, which is really the main reason I'm changing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A bunch of recaps of this series, but they can't even tell us what network it was on. Definite WP:TNT case.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are many sources for the popular series and I've added a couple for now. Hijiri88 also showed its notability. StrayBolt (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't !vote "keep" specifically was because arguing that having starred Bharadwaj, who is famous for the much earlier Mahabharat (from which this was essentially a spinoff, although this claim might be OR), makes it notable is essentially a NOTINHERITED argument. Your Tribune India citation similarly is more a puff-piece about Bharadwaj's history of playing various avatars of Vishnu and just happened to coincide with the premier of this series, but says almost nothing encyclopedic about the series other than its premier date; some of the information you attribute to it, such as "124 episodes" is not supported by it, and wouldn't be even if the source actually did say as much, since it would be too old. The India Today piece similarly is more about Bharadwaj than Vishnu Puran, and doesn't actually support the content you cited to it, as it says four other shows (Jai Mata Ki, Jai Ganga Maiya, Ma Shakti and Shree Ganesh) were "Top 10" in one manner or another, although apparently for the first two this meant top ten a particular network, which is not very noteworthy encyclopedic information without more context -- it actually seems to imply Vishnu Puran was not a top ten show as it goes out of its way to list "mythologicals" that made the top ten and doesn't mention Vishnu Puran among these. It somewhat seems you read my above comment, Googled up more sources about Bharadwaj and threw them into the article, which implies you wanted to !vote one way despite the fact that your argument had already been demonstrated as flawed before you made it: your !voting record and your association (per this, you are one of three active contributors) with a certain disreputable "keepist" WikiProject (itself having a reputation for claiming to improve articles while instead shifting AFD !votes from "delete" to "no consensus") appear to support this. The reason I am not !voting "delete" is just because I don't have access to the main source I used at the time I originally wrote the article, which I believe was a promotional piece on the Mahabharat DVD box set, and can't check if it was itself usable for creating a worthwhile article (even though it definitely wasn't independent and so wouldn't satisfy any notability guideline) -- I definitely don't remember what it said after more than ten years -- but I would be willing to !vote "delete" simply to counteract any apparent "keep" !votes that appear to have been made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  10:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major television series (over 100 episodes) on major television network Zee TV which has a higher viewership than ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX combined. Most certainly Hindi language coverage exists.  Even a 20 episode show on ABC would never even be considered for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Commment Perspective is needed however; India around 2000 had a population of 1.028 billion, while the US had 281.5 million, which is a 4-1 difference, so of course anything Indian is going to top American ratings based on a wider audience. However, it's very doubtful all of the episodes beat the American broadcast networks; Zee TV is still a cable/satellite channel, and not all of those 1.028 billion Indians can afford satellite service. If DD National aired this, I might more believe the claim. I'm still convinced the article needs a major repair that needs more than uninspiring loglines and is undecodable to anyone who hasn't seen this series or read the Vishnu Purana.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting blind speculation on Zee TV's ratings based on it being a cable/satellite channel but reliable sources say the Zee Network is in fact the most watched network in India with a viewership of over 740 million., compared to just over 25.6 million for CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined with ABC at only about 5.6 million. Shows on Zee TV are major.--Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, are you going to fix the article, based on your OR claim that it must have had high viewership (and therefore been covered in reliable secondary sources!?) because the network that aired it in its first run has high viewership? (BTW, almost nothing on Zee has high numbers in first-run international syndication, which kinda shoots your argument that it has been seen by more people than ABC shows in the foot; I didn't point this out earlier because it's completely irrelevant to AFD, but now that you've made the same argument multiple times I might as well point this out.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No OR as the reliable sources linked state the networks viewerships. First run syndication is just a red herring as even if there was no syndication, the gigantic viewership of Zee TV of over 740 million of Zee TV stands.  I don't believe for a second that extensive coverage in the Hindi language doesn't exist for a show on such a highly viewed Hindi languagne network.  Just using common sense instead of being pedantic.  --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is OR to state that because of the network viewership statistics this particular show (which aired well over a decade before those sources) had such-and-such viewership. Do not even attempt to add this claim to the article. If you have nothing we can add to this article, then it should be deleted or redirected. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is Zee's Annual Report for 1999-2000. Sorry, it might be biased, but probably meets some legal standard for accuracy. StrayBolt (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not enough for me; I usually need a third-party source to confirm whether a rating is true or not, along with viewership. The Oscars struggle to get their bloated 'million people around the world watch' claim completely confirmed (since it's 2am in Europe and people are in school in Asia, or they're watching an edited version a week after). I can believe that 740 million people may have watched this series in aggregate, but they definitely didn't all watch every single minute of it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE: It would be great if we didn't have articles on random 20-episode shows about which no sourced, encyclopedic information can be written solely because they aired on ABC, but it's not this show's fault that English Wikipedia is filled with articles on shitty American pop culture that are undeletable. Our deletion policy and notability guidelines are based on whether we can actually write anything worthwhile without engaging in original research or unsourced speculation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Wait-Running a source-search but it will take time. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and mention in the disambiguation page--I can find ample trivial mentions of the work, in English news-pieces about the protagonist and the producer and some trivial mentions in list of serials/films centered around mythology but there's not a single retrievable piece that devotes significant coverage to the serial, in it's entirety.I will check the Hindi dailies of that time but am not much hopeful. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The serial has been covered in Sunday-entertainment-sections of a few Hindi dailies but nothing close to GNG. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast and has sufficient coverage to pass that criteria especially as it is 18 years old now so some sources have gone from view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 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.