Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaandni Raatain


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaandni Raatain

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Verbatim (or part/chunk) copy of Aaminah Haq ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 12:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom.-- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Appears to be a notable program. If it's been copied from another article it can certainly be trimmed or rewritten. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, very few webhits. If it was a popular or well-known film, there should be more buzz, but I could find none.Chasingsol (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment i get 40,500 hits on google with the spelling Chandi Ratein and no quotes, 620 hits hits with "Chandi Ratain" in quotes - the spelling problem is an urdu/latin transliteration problem, not a problem of notability. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: this spelling "Chaandni Ratain" in quotes gets 873 hits. Boud (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Hear:I wrote the material on the Aamina Haq page so, when I copied matter off it, I didn't think I was plagiarising. I was trying to give the dramas mentioned on the Aamina Haq page their own articles and, once that was done, provide links (in the Haq article) to those new pages. (Rk12m (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have done some minor cleanup and sourcing and tagged the article for Rescue. As sources are available and notability can be easily shown, it is now simply a matter for cleanup under "Alternatives to Deletion".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the moment i don't see much overlap between the two articles, so the original motivation for deletion seems to be missing. Also, WikiProject Countering systemic bias is relevant here: "The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer (cf. User survey and University of Würzburg survey, 2005)." The present article (1) concerns mainly women, (2) is an art topic rather than a tech topic, is (7) from a country where Christianity is a minor religion only, (8) is from a country with nuclear bombs but is not a rich country. Those of us whose demographic profiles match many of the 10 parameters known to bias the en.wikipedia ought to be especially sensitive about this bias before jumping too quickly into AfD's, IMHO. The erroneous statement above that there are few "webhits" suggests an example of this bias through someone not realising that transliteration from urdu to latin script is generally quite ambiguous, and maybe being unfamiliar with the idea that the "true" spelling of a word may exist only in the original script, not in latin script. Boud (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, tagging articles for a deletion discussion doesn't seem to be unduly biased, as most of the articles tagged for deletion have not been victims of transliteration. Also, there are 2 citations on the page, both leading to the same review in a questionably notable online publication. This doesn't seem to be bias, so much as concern for notability guidelines. Please clarify your above statement. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * i think there may be some misunderstanding. Firstly, i'm not suggesting that the majority of (or any) people who nominated or are involved in this discussion are individually biased. However, please have a look at the links and the text i quoted above and read them again. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should expect that the set of people in this discussion are statistically biased with respect to this article. This is not just my opinion. This is documented at User survey and University of Würzburg survey, 2005 and discussed NPOV-style at WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Let's put it another way. Chances are that User:Rk12m is the only person among us who is a South Asiann woman who watches lots of films. Certainly i don't qualify by any of those three demographic/sociological criteria (i'd like to watch a lot more films, but i don't). i have no idea what other articles have been tagged for deletion by the person who tagged this one for deletion, and that would be irrelevant anyway - i'm not claiming that that person (Mr E. Sanchez) is biased.
 * Secondly, even though i responded to the web hits argument, great care must be taken with web hit counts as a notability criterion, e.g. "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. ... The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet." This is a case of a popular culture topic, but is internet access in Pakistan and google ranking high enough on Pakistani websites to expect much more than a few hundred hits for this movie? Again, please see WikiProject Countering systemic bias if it's not clear why this is relevant.
 * Thirdly, as for the two citations to a (i presume) not-so-notable publication, i agree that this is a problem, but the same systemic bias applies to Pakistani cultural magazines. IMHO it would be reasonable to expect that probably 90% or so of movie reviews etc in rich Western countries are online without a subscription, and that maybe only 10% or so of movie reviews are online in Pakistan. i'm just speculating on the actual figures - but certainly the former must be bigger than the latter. If someone wants to search real estimates, please go ahead. As for what counts as a "reliable source" for movie reviews in general, that's something i can't judge very well.
 * Summary: there is a fundamental conflict between notability guidelines and the hope to counter systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. We cannot give up notability principles, but at the same time, we should try to counter the systemic bias, because it's a pity to have NPOV without any hope to get anywhere near neutrality on humanities subjects. There's no magic answer as to what to do, although WikiProject Countering systemic bias does have a section on generic suggestions. In this particular case, one obvious thing to do would be to ask for help at WikiProject Pakistan before even thinking of deletion. In the meantime, put some tags such as &#123;&#123;Refimprove&#125;&#125; and also try explaining to User:Rk12m the dilemma we have. S/he is clearly a relatively new wikipedian. IMHO people from WikiProject Pakistan and in particular User:Akhwandk from WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema would be people who in wikipedia jargon could be called "more expert" than "average wikipedians". However, looking at WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema shows that there's only one user listed there so far, and that user's contributions happen a few times a week, but not every day, and for a few weeks s/he has not been editing. This gets back to the point about internet access. A deletion process probably has a timescale of about a week (AFAIR, but i'm not an expert) - this doesn't give enough time for someone like Akhwandk to hear the call for help and give an opinion or practical help in finding reliable sources. Boud (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-- Only 10% percent of the population of Pakistan use the internet 1 and probably internet sources are few. The fact that the drama was broadcast in the Pakistan Television Corporation should be enough to establish general notability.--Jmundo (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right about internet usage. Reliable printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but were not included. If the program appeared on national TV, there surely must be evidence of this somewhere? -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:03, 25 December 2008 (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.