Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerak Khas


 * 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 Keep.  E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerak Khas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Google search for "Gerak Khas" -wikipedia gives 591 unique hits (over 10,000 hits total, but many of them duplicates, especially the IMDB hits). Also, there is actually no entry on IMDB for a TV series called "Gerak Khas", just the movie. Finally, even when you search for "Gerak Khas" -wikipedia, you get a lot of unrelated hits (including for Grup Gerak Khas, a formation in the Malaysian Army). The same search in just Malaysian sites gives only 704 hits (only 192 of them unique), most of which still refer to military units. Therefore, I vote to delete this article because it does not satisfy the chief criterion for notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."-- ugen64 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As I noted in the deletion review, in Google News Archive, it gets 145 hits, of which about 115 are related to the series and its movies. These stories describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. According to this box office chart, the first film was the top film in Malaysia (middle chart); it was also #1 the following week. I will be working on the article to flesh out its notability claims. That IMDB would fail to include a TV series from Malaysia is not surprising. Also, as I noted at DRV, there seems to be something funny happening with the hit counts Google is giving for "gerak khas", but all Google searches will give you less than 1,000 unique hits, because it only gives you the unique hits in the first 1,000 results (see WP:GOOGLE)
 * P.S. As for the Malaysian-domain results, I don't know if hit-counting for a less-wired nation like Malaysia is the best test of notability, but if you look more closely at the results, you'll see that most of them are for the show or its movies. -- Groggy Dice T | C 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a foreign show, is it now? In that case, I wonder about the effectiveness of your search.  I would suggest referring this to an existing project on Malaysia to see what they can find out.  PS, AFD is not a vote, it's bad form to represent your nomination that way.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions.   --  Groggy Dice  T | C 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a figure of speech, where "I vote to..." means something like "I propose that we should...". Maybe the better word there would have been "elect" - like "Bill Belichick elected to start Tom Brady at quarterback". In that case it doesn't literally mean "elect" either, just a figure of speech. Also, the burden of proof regarding notability is on the article creator and contributors, not on the rest of us - if someone wants a foreign TV show to have an article, that person has to come up with the sources for notability. ugen64 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a slopppy figure of speech, which tends to distort the purpose of AFD and while it's not a horrible thing, it's still bad form. My advice is to just make it a habit to avoid it. I know it's easy to let the word slip, but it can be avoided.  In any case, while I agree the burden of proof is on the person claiming notability, there's also the realization that as a non-English Language program, the sources in English may be minimal.  Thus my suggestion to seek input from an existing Malaysia-related project so native language speakers can weigh in.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a slopppy figure of speech, which tends to distort the purpose of AFD and while it's not a horrible thing, it's still bad form. My advice is to just make it a habit to avoid it. I know it's easy to let the word slip, but it can be avoided.  In any case, while I agree the burden of proof is on the person claiming notability, there's also the realization that as a non-English Language program, the sources in English may be minimal.  Thus my suggestion to seek input from an existing Malaysia-related project so native language speakers can weigh in.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - unconvinced English-language searches are the most useful way to go about discerning the nobility of a Malaysian show. Convinced by Groggydice. Phil Sandifer 12:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - English-language sources, such as IMDB, and searches on English language web pages ... ah, what Phil said! If you can show that there is no such thing, will change vote, but a television series running for 6 years, with 3 movie spin-offs, is clearly notable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Top rated show, even in it's fifth season, three million viewers per episode, spawned a movie spin off that raked in over RM4 million , then more sequels, etc etc. Come on, counting google hit to determine notability in Asia? This is an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Paxse 13:32, 30 July 2007 (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.