Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohag Chand

Sohag Chand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sohag Chand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

mostly run of the mill coverage that does not confer notability Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No WP:SIGCOV, looks like the marketing department scraping the barrel to make it look notable. The Banner talk 14:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of the coverage is significant; some on the page and some not yet. (It's a series not a film btw).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mushy Yank Could you identify said pieces of significant non-run-of-the-mill coverage ? Sohom (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Daily soap ‘Sohag Chand’ completes 100 episodes";"Did you know ‘Sohag Chand’ is the remake of Marathi show ‘SuManamadhe Bharli?’ " and "'Sohag Chand': শেষ পর্যন্ত জিতবে সোহাগ চাঁদের দল! কোন দিকে মোড় নেবে ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?"

  are significant and on the page. And this or this, or this also is significant coverage, yet is not on the page (yet; but feel free to add it), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, what you call "significant sources" is nothing more then the marketing department talking. The Banner talk 23:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

These are more under WP:NEWSORGINDIA - non-bylined churnalism - unreliable to use for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note about the Times of India: The 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 is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to Colors Bangla or to the original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4Reality regarding sockpuppets. Regarding the rest, I'll probably bring this up at WP:RSN. Sohom (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC).