This redirect 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 redirect 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
This redirect 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
@Rosguill:, I created this article in my starting days, with a lot of other Indian television articles, assuming they meet WP:NTV since the show aired on Nickelodeon, a national channel with a relatively wide reach in India. I'm also aware of the wider issue of SNGs being too broad (like 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, Rosguilltalk21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, I don't agree with your statement 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 that was the case, many academic biography articles would be deleted, like it was done some time ago. Remember when an academic's article was deleted only to be recreated after she won a Nobel Prize? That led to so much drama. Guidelines like 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, Rosguilltalk02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
