Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV. I'am re-closing this AfD per WP:BADNAC, as set out in Deletion review/Log/2023 January 25. I agree with 's assessment there: "2 out of the 3 keep !votes are unsigned comments by Pakistan IPs with total article overlap and should have been discounted entirely as obvious socking. The sole other keep !vote (from an editor who has made the exact same types of edits to the exact same page the IPs edited...) vaguely claims to have added refs that were "not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs" but does not explain how they count towards GNG and did not address the comments demonstrating several of the sources they added were not RS. Meanwhile, the delete/redirect !votes made P&G-based arguments and actively engaged with specific sources."  Sandstein  06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Badnaseeb
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Semi-procedural nomination, previously brought to AfD and soft-deleted following minimal participation a few months ago. Since recreation, one substantive additional source has been cited: The Brown Identity, which has decent analysis, although its About Us doesn't inspire confidence. Even if accepted as reliable (and I'm somewhat inclined to do so), we still seem to fall short of GNG as a whole. The other additional sources just mention the series in passing while discussing the careers of actors involved in it. I attempted to search for more sources in English and Urdu online, but am limited by my minimal proficiency in the latter. signed,Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. signed,Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, added more references which are not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs, taking the total count of references in an article to 13. The serial received coverage from both English and Urdu sites, making it a notable serial aired on television. Lillyput4455 (talk) 03 January 2023, 19:01 (UTC).
 * I've looked at the additional sources added since the AfD was opened and don't think they do much to change the situation. signed,Rosguill talk 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: A couple of scraper / database pages used as sources, multiple sources that have a passing mention at best for the show, WP:ROUTINE pre-release publicity pieces. Lillyput4455, what do you feel are the top three sources in the article that have significant coverage of the show and are not interview pieces?  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep- undoubtedly, it has been improved since nominated last time for deletion. I have witnessed some new sources, which covers the show in detail in local language. It does fulfil WP:SIGCOV criteria, doesn't seems like there's any reason to delete the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.13.245 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)  — 182.182.13.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources don't establish WP:N, for WP:GNG or WP:SNG.  // Timothy :: talk  21:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV as a possible WP:ATD or delete per nom's analysis. Refs are non-WP:SIGCOV routine announcements, interviews, or non-reliable sources with little editorial policies demonstrating a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is substantial and meets significant coverage, but its about us simply suggests The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes. We feature guest content, tv reviews, interviews, everything under one big brown sky! and clearly lacks editorial policies, subject-matter-expertise, or sufficient WP:USEBYOTHERS to qualify as a reliable source.  VickKiang  (talk)  04:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, as per articles history, new sources from local published articles have been added. It does cover the article and its cast without any ambiguity fulfiling criteria of a TV series to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.41.199 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)  — 111.88.41.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you identify precisely which sources you believe add up to meeting GNG? Nothing has changed since the last time I looked at this. signed,Rosguill talk 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What criteria are you referring to?  VickKiang  (talk)  21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone has expressed their point of view over the issue, why does it have to be always as per your analysis? Clearly I've added sources to the show you can confirm it from the page history. Moreover, since it's in local language you might not understand the depth and crux of the sources which covers everything related to the show. Rosguill talk Are you sure nothing is added since you nominated it for deletion? Lillyput4455 (talk) 18 January 2023, 18:44 (UTC)
 * just expressed that nothing has changed due to sources being insufficient, which is a distinctively different argument. You added Trending In Social, a blog that highlights trending topics in the world of social media. self-published sources are generally unreliable unless you can demonstrate that there is clear editorial processes or that the staff are subject-matter experts. Inevitably, you will disagree with my statement, but it will obviously be stronger if you could refute the central point instead of stating that since it's in local language you might not understand the depth and crux of the sources which covers everything related to the show. It would be desirable if you refer to policies and guidelines instead of casting doubt on that others might not understand the depth and crux of the sources, which will not really advance your case. Additionally, this for me which could not be opened due to a 502 error. You mention that there are 13 references, which is laudable, but as you sure know it's never about the quantity but the quality of the sourcing. Thank you.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.