Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Hai Chota Sa (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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Dil Hai Chota Sa
AfDs for this article:


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

Was seemingly closed as "no consensus" earlier today, which is questionable when the weight of argument was in favour of deletion. None the less, the viability and determined notability of this subject has not been decided upon.

There was just a single additional reference added during the last afd, while none of the current references meet WP:SIGCOV. We cannot use database entries or one-word mentions on an article about a different subject to assert notability. Likewise, actors who may be notable for their work outside of this show do not make this show notable merely by their participation.

Anyone wishing to !vote keep should read the previous afd and demonstrate with evidence why this is a notable show. This evidence was not offered during the last afd. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: The first AFD just closed last week. And we are back here 7 days later? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close Go to WP:DRV or see WP:RENOM. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I really did consider DRV, but that to me is really an avenue if you staunchly disagree with the closure and believe it's conclusively wrong. While I did disagree, not to the point of challenging a relister and a closer with what seemed a balanced discussion. RENOM is an essay and I am aware of the guidance of a delay and the reasons offered. If there is another expression, like your own, to take to DRV instead then that'll be something to consider. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would vote delete, but per WP:RENOM (yes it's an essay), If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months., I agree with your insightful analysis per the previous AfD, but given that AfD is just recently closed discussion here would likely lead to the same result. If it is the case that this AfD can proceed, no worries, but if it's procedurally closed my advice is wait for two months preferably. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: DRV probably would have been a better option for this. I stand by my delete reasoning in the original AFD, the sources here are weak at best and nothing really in depth. There has been no improvement since the AFD was started either.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I still disagree with the article's deletion. The serial does have reliable sources to remian published. Lillyput4455 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't. You failed in the last afd to respond to my request as to which sources are WP:SIGCOV, WP:SECONDARY and WP:RELIABLE and you fail to say so now. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 December 2022 (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.