Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima Feng


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Fatima Feng

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS. This page only cites non-RS. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) *Keep - On the basis of following observations;
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. | Reference 6 and | 7 are potential WP:Reliable Sources with WP:SIGCOV about the show.
 * 2. In addition to above, upon Google search of the title in the local language, I found | BBC news, | DAWN and | Aaj News references, establishing WP: Notability along with WP:SIGCOV, ideally should be incorporated as the references of the article.
 * 3. On Analytically comparison of article with other television shows which I have initiated a WP:AfD on (Bhagyavidhaata and others), appears to be in line with WP: TVSERIES.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sameeerrr, The coverage in The News relying on interview, isn't suitable for establishing GNG, and People Magazine isn't considered a RS. Similarly, coverage in Urdu language outlets like BBC Urdu and DAWN News, also interview-based, isn't adequate for establishing GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIRS either. While these coverage can be used for WP:V, they fall short of meeting GNG. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (television) sets out references to be primarily WP:Reliable and Independent along with significant coverage.
 * Sources mentioned above are WP:Reliable enough to cover the subject and are WP:Independent of the matter.
 * In WP:GNG, it's clearly stated that, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Sources linked related to BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News aren't merely trivial mentions. They are interviews based on main character and cast member of the show apparently covering the show. Also The News International is a WP:RS where as People Magazine is a weak WP:RS.
 * All in all, it does establish WP:GNG which is primary criteria as per WP:Notability (television) as per my evaluation, yours can differ. I'll leave it to the other editors to decide the outcome. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GNG, coverage should be significant and independent of the subject. How does interview-based coverage qualify as independent of the subject? I reiterate that such coverage can be utilized for WP:V but not to establish GNG. My concern isn't about the reliability of sources, but rather the type of coverage. Such coverage often falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as paid placements are common in India as well in Pakistan. Thus, it's advisable to avoid relying on such coverage to establish GNG. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News, The News International falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Sameeerrr (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm NOT saying these sources themselves aren't unreliable, but the coverage they provide has two issues. Firstly, the coverage is based on interviews, which isn't sufficient to meet GNG . Secondly, there's still the issue of paid placements, as outlets like DAWN and The News fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no conclusive evidence as to supplement your statement regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA in this case. Hence, it's not appropriate to tag them as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also I believe the sources you removed, | (this and | this) are WP:RS, merely as per your determination you can't constitute WP:RS in the absence of explicit reliable sources list to assess the reliability mentioned sources. Taking into consideration External Links section, and the mentioned references, article clearly establishes WP:GNG along with WP:SIGCOV.
 * I would rather not reply anymore cause I've other matters to look into as well. I hope closing admin and other editors will take into consideration the points I've raised over this. Adios! Sameeerrr (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sameeerrr, As noted here: WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. See you around! — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 14:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone most probably  did this. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 21:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sources provided seem to be WP:FAKEREF WP:SPAM. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Allan Nonymous, Not really WP:FAKEREF, but WP:SPAM. Though I've removed all now. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, that's just an LTA who targets AFDs at random. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (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.