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. Davewild ( talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay

List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Very badly sourced fancruft Vibhss ( talk) 21:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, all but the last award appear to be notable, so neither part of this nomination is correct, and there is absolutely no reason to believe the information is unverifiable. This instead seems like a standard WP:SPLIT from the parent TV series article (see contents of Category:Lists of awards by television series), and would at a minimum be merged back there, but seems too large for that. postdlf ( talk) 18:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• The references listed in the article are from weebly.com which was claimed as an unreliable source in the talk page of the article Kasamh Se. The source along with the information it provided was removed from the article. (Of course, now all the sources in Kasamh Se are totally reliable. No sources from weebly.com are mentioned in the article) Same should be done to this article. It must be deleted as it is largely based on sources from weebly.com. Vibhss ( talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You don't have a claim that weebly made up or is the only source that exists for this information, and we do not blank content that is verifiable just because we don't like the sources currently in an article. Doing so is contrary to WP:V as well as editing policy at WP:PRESERVE. I've reverted the content you blanked from this list because it seemed to be done without regard to whether sourcing was possible, and you also blanked most of the list's intro and the awards tally infobox for no reason I can discern. I'm going to chalk this up to unfamiliarity with our policies and practices as I see that you're a brand new editor, but you really need to read through WP:V more carefully before you remove any more content. A better practice for now might be to post a question on the list's talk page asking for guidance as far as what sourcing is appropriate for notable awards and about what actually qualifies as "fancruft" (the fact that a show won an actual, notable award is most certainly not). postdlf ( talk) 21:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• • I am well aware of the wikipedia policies and I AM NOT A BRAND NEW EDITOR. I have been editing wikipedia for last three years. I somehow forgot my last account's password. As I mentioned earlier, most of the refernces in List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay are blogs from weebly.com which is unreliable surces. Besides, just go through the references. Some of them just show an error of "temporarily blocked or unavailable". You can't treat that like a reliable source. If you just view the introductory paragraph, you will definitely find that unsourced fancruft. It doesn't even meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Besides this, I have not removed everything from the article. It is according to Wikipedia policy that unless you provide a reliable source, once again I am saying a reliable one, any registered editor can remove badly sourced information from the article. It is my deeply humble request to go through the references mentioned in the article, then decide whether you can place them under reliable category or not. Wikipedia does not treat blogs as reliable sources. I really claim that there are no other reliable sources supporting the fancruft info in the article. If you can, then please find them. As I mentioned earlier, in article Kasamh Se, I myself had cited the sources from weebly.com to support the awards info, but some experienced users to name for a few, User:Thomas.W, User:MarnetteD, User:Yamaguchi先生, User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom removed those awards for which I had cited sources from weebly.com claiming them to be unreliable. I even received an administrator warning to stop adding unreliable sources from weebly. Same should be done to this article as most references are from weebly.com. I myself found that weebly offered conflicting information in Indian Telly Awards. For example, all reliable sources mention Ashwini Kalsekar winning the Indian Telly Award for Best Actress in a Negative Role for Kasamh Se in the year 2006 whereas weebly tells that the award was won by Urvashi Dholakia for Kasautii Zindagii Kay. How can an editor tolerate wrongful sources/ unreliable sources in an article related to one of the most popular Indian soap operas like Kasautii Zindagii Kay. I can find myself that you are a great fan of this serial. But that doesn't mean wikipedia will provide wrong/ unsourced/ conflicting facts. Unless you find reliable sources for the article, don't include the information with unreliable sources supporting it by reverting my edits. Once again I declare that this article must be deleted as soon as possible according to wikipedia policies as it is almost entirely based on unreliable sources from weebly. I removed the telly box info because the totaling of awards couldn't be said with surity unless reliable sources had been provided. I have reverted your edits to my previous stored version. Almost no source in the article is reliable. See: WP:RS Vibhss ( talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not seeing "fancruft" in the intro at all; it just seems like a neutral summary of what awards the show has received, which is completely appropriate for a separate list of the show's accolades. And the infobox totaling the awards merely totaled those listed in the article, which is again just a summary of the list's contents. I have a hard time believing that notable wards (i.e., those we have articles about) such as the Asian Television Awards or The Global Indian Film and TV Honours are somehow unverifiable. Such claims come up time and time again in Indian TV AFDs, and it's almost always the result of WP:SYSTEMIC bias and/or people being unfamiliar with how to research the information. It looks like there might be issues with online sources being unstable, but that still leaves libraries. There's also no deadline here or other urgency that would require us to blank the content right this second so visitors to the page can't even tell what needs sourcing, let alone AFD participants who should see what the potential range of information is. postdlf ( talk) 19:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Vibhss: I agree with this removal, btw, as there's not even any context there to identify who conducted these polls or when, which makes that section completely unverifiable. postdlf ( talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

keep per user:Postdlf. Being badly sourced is a reason to delete, it's a reason to tag it as needing better sourcing. There is not the slightest reason to believe this show has not received these awards. filceolaire ( talk) 16:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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.