Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tumhare Husn Ke Naam

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam[edit]

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

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Added multiple references which help establish WP:GNG. Google Search yields significant content about the show (free images, references, critic reviews,cast etc). Sameeerrr (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Sameeerrr, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why consider only Three sources when articles contains all WP:RS? After removing 4 Non Reliable sources, it does includes 9 Reliable Sources. In aggregate, it establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sameeerrr (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sameeerrr, For me and others to determine whether the topic meets GNG, I suggest you provide THREE of the best coverage sources here. It's as simple as that. Nobody will comb through those nine citations to gauge whether this subject meets GNG. Please ensure the THREE coverage sources you provide meet WP:SIRS requirements. This is how AfD functions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No matter which references I'll provide, you'll still have some issues with it. As I don't have any specific interest associated with this article, I had to put across my POV which I did and established it with evidences as well (by adding references). Like I said in WP:AfD for Fatima Feng, I'll leave it to other editors and closing admin to figure out. Take care! Sameeerrr (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sameeerrr, You could've at least attempted to present THREE, just THREE sources, but it seems there aren't any that qualify for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All the sources are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG like I said. I wonder if you nominated WP:AfD without evaluating all the sources since you've no idea about the inline citations of the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So, what's holding you back from providing just THREE here? I've taken over 1000+ articles to AfD, so I know what I'm doing. If I were nominating pages without any rationale, I would have been BLOCKED already. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your perspective and my perspective regarding WP:GNG differs already. | This, | this and | this, appears to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well but I won't be shocked if you oppose it. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm definitely going to oppose these coverage. I'm not really surprised either that you came up with not only poor coverage but also poor sources like Daily Pakistan to establish GNG. Daily Pakistan is notorious for publishing sensational news stories. And the Dawn News coverage seems to be from an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. Meanwhile, Daily Times looks like a clear paid placements. One can clearly see the style of churnalism writing. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say NO. Also, you mentioned I have no idea about the inline citations. But the fact is, your grasp of GNG is poor too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This was the reason I wasn't giving you the best "Three" as I already knew you won't be satisfied. It's a consensus, not a WP:Forum, where we're supposed to decide who's right and who's wrong. IMO all the sources are reliable and establish WP:GNG plus Google search yields alot about the serial (free images, links, reviews from critics etc) as "Find Sources" is appearing on this WP:AfD, there can be more possible references to add in it. As per my grasp of WP:GNG, it clearly meets WP:NTV. If my grasp of WP:GNG was poor, I'd not have nominated shows like Bhagyavidhaata, Aurat (TV series) and voted "Delete" for Chamak Damak as I feel they clearly fails WP:NTV, In comparison to these, this one is thousand times better. I don't want to waste my time on this anymore as I said above, Have a good day! Sameeerrr (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr This is not about satisfying Saqib but making a convincing argument to the community. You did do the right thing by starting the WP:RSN#Pakistani Sources discussion to get feedback about some the sources and based my comments and others they are not reliable and/or primary. Also, WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline so does not enjoy community consensus like WP:GNG. Given you are supporting Keep, I echo Saqib's request for WP:THREE as none of the ones you presented at RSN meet the criteria and based on the sources currently in article, I am seeing casting announcements, articles based on largely what those affiliated and other run-of-the-mill/press release material. The first source would not open for me though so I could not asses that one so please double check the url. If it works for you, then the issue is on my side. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Oh, thanks for highlighting that WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline. I must have missed that. So, it means every TV series will need to be assessed based on GNG because we don't have a specific WP:N, right? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a compelling reason another guideline applies (WP:NWEB for example) then GNG is the guideline for TV shows. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure shot! Then ideally there shouldn't be any article related to Pakistani TV series as all of the shows cite sources from these newspapers and sites. Let me help you in cleaning up such articles then. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of articles out there that totally meet WP N , like, you know, Parizaad, Humsafar, Zindagi Gulzar Hai etc, but definitely don't need to have standalone articles on each one of them. This aint directory of Pakistani TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, other than these shows I should start WP:AfD on ideally. I have initiated WP:AfD on a show, will add more tomorrow onwards. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. Primary sources are often fine to use for WP:V like casting announcements, release dates and the like as are secondary reliable sources that do not meet the GNG WP:SIGCOV criteria to support other content. However, at least two sources meeting the four GNG criteria are needed for notability. That is generally the standard for most Wikipedia articles regardless of the topic (exceptions do apply such as WP:NPROF, WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPOL). S0091 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comments above, Sources do not meet WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (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.