Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisaat (TV series)


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Bisaat (TV series)

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

Bisaat (TV series)

This article as written does not satisfy television notability or general notability. The article says nothing about Reception of the show, and appears to be left over from before it first aired, so that it cannot be verified that the series has indeed started.

The only references all predate the scheduled start date of the show and are announcements that it is planned, so that there is no significant coverage of an actual series.

It was already moved back to draft space once, and has then been moved back to article space, so that another draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * why do you say those sources are neither independent nor secondary? I agree they don't give significant coverage.VR talk 02:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Vice regent - They are neither independent nor secondary because they are simply announcements from the producer, just like press releases. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * why do you say these are announcements from the producer? The dawn article seems to be authored by "IRFAN UL HAQ", Dawn's "celebrity correspondent". The bol news article seems to be authored by that organization's "web desk". The author of Daily Times article is not stated.VR talk 02:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Vice regent - Why? Because they are.  Because that is the way celebrity journalism works.  The signatures are those of the reporters who received the announcements and published them.  When the producers and actors are providing information to news media, which they are, why should the journalists do any actual independent digging?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nomination, which is well considered and very detailed, as usual for Robert. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:56, 25 December 2021 (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.