Talk:Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 3 September 2018 by reviewer TryKid (talk · contribs). India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The provided references look like PR pieces, I'm not sure this meets

@

WP:NFOOTY) and whether GNG previlails over SNGs. I agree that there is a lack of coverage, but I think this is due to India being a developing country and animated shows being considered "for kids only", leading them to be not covered in newspapers even though they are notable. I don't know what to do with the tag, it will probably linger there forever without anything being done, like in so many other articles. I don't think anything was achieved by tagging it but you probably didn't except anything would be achieved anyway. Regards, TryKid (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

TryKid, I think that this may be a case where NTV casts a broader net than is warranted. Remember that notability is a measure of the amount of coverage of the subject that has been published, not a measure of the subject's real-world importance. If the circumstances (children's show in a developing nation) led to the show not receiving any coverage, then unfortunately it's not notable and I'm not sure we should have an article about it since we are unlikely to ever find the kind of quality coverage which would justify creating an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC demonstrate that notability is not a measure of how much coverage something thing got. TryKid (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

TryKid, I think that NACADEMIC deals with a significantly different issue, which is that coverage of academics does exist, but is generally in the form of academic papers building on their work or in the form of bios published by affiliated institutions rather than the secondary source coverage that GNG insists on. The peer review process for papers and the prestige associated with research institutions, mean that these sources are much more reliable than the typical primary or non-independent source, and give us much more to go on. The same cannot be said of PR for a children's show.

At any rate, I was able to find slightly better coverage from an online search. It's still not a slam-dunk for GNG, but I think it's enough to justify removing the tag _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You tube Not Available Mohhamad Khalid rafsan (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

M S Hassan (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]