Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of Nazir

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 no consensus‎. No new participation after two relistings has me closing this as No consensus. Maybe a future AFD (way in the future) will result in a more decisive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Nazir[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)

Article about a film and YouTube series, not properly referenced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass notability standards for films or web content. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to pass WP:GNG -- but this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own website, IMDb and/or the episodes themselves on YouTube, and what precious little it shows in the way of third-party coverage is very, very short blurbs that aren't substantial enough to pass GNG all by themselves, along with one citation (duplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason) which appears to be here solely to create the false impression that this has coverage in an academic book so long as you don't actually look at the source to discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and just happens to coincidentally mention a completely different Nazir in a completely different work.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better sourcing than has been offered. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources on the page indicated some notability. I've added more. Primary sources can be removed or not, but this is more a matter of cleanup, as secondary sources exist.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are indicating notability, when every single footnote in the entire page (even after your additions) is still either primary or unreliable? Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What sources? Answer: GhanaWeb or Pulse among other things. And I cannot see any reason to consider GhMoviefreak unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 14 February 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.