Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 1 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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 keep. – sgeureka 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein

Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreferenced article about a soap opera that provides no evidence of notability. The only mentions in reliable sources I can find are thin passing references such as . This article has already been deleted after a Prod (as not notable) and a speedy deletion (as recreated by a banned user). I don't believe this new TV show (launch Feb 14, 2012) is yet notable enough to support an article. Sparthorse (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Deletion processes exist exactly for this kind of article. Fails various guidelines and policies as mentioned by nominator above. Cloudz679 14:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a page of a drama serial of Star Plus channel which is popular in Asia. it is not a empty page or abusing something like and not promoting something and it has now verificable refrences... -- Faisalabadian 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except the references, being self-published, are not reliable sources. Cloudz679 05:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Third party and reliable references added, notable enough to warrant an article. Just started and already mentioned in several news stories on Google. Thanks! --Ekabhishek 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Citations provided. It got 21 000 views in the last month so some people think it's notable in and of itself.Span (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2012 (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.