Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khoobsurat (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude  (talk)  16:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Khoobsurat (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a promotional routine piece from a questionable website with only a vague about us page but no editorial policies (non-RS, non-SIGCOV). Ref 2 is another piece from a non-reliable site, its about us page is amateurish, advertising We eat, sleep and breathe entertainment, delivering exclusive breaking news and in-depth coverage on our celebrities, events and movie premieres, TV scoops and spoilers, fashion trends and tips, and what's viral now but no editorial policies. Ref 3 is a routine announcement (non-SIGCOV), ref describes itself as a blog (non-RS). Ref 4 is from the same website as ref 2 (non-reliable), whereas ref 5 is another short minor announcement totalling four sentences, mainly routine info on the trailer and cast. A WP:BEFORE search found frequent mentions on Khoobsurat (2014 film) of the same name, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, an older 1999 film, but I did not find anything about this TV series except for this trivial mention in an unreliable source.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  08:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as despite having signifant coverage, reliable and independent sources, article is Nominated for deletion. I don't understand what else do we have to expect from a reference related to a TV series. The reference added are from well known critics website in the country. Nominator of Deletion is not aware about it, if not sure look out from other sources of Tv series, you'll get the better idea, thank you! Lillyput4455 (user) 14:15 UTC.
 * Thank you for your reply. Which one of these sources show that signifant coverage, reliable and independent sources are met, and which refs are reliable to be considered from well known critics? if not sure look out from other sources of Tv series- thanks but I find this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a bit unconvincing. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  09:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This reference is of an international newspaper DAWN, how come it's not a reliable source solely covering the subject? Infact other sources are also reliable though. Sorry, but I find your reasons baseless. "HIP IN PK" is a reliable critic page, check out their social media handles, if you have doubts. Not every website needs to have "About us" page to depict their notability. Hope you get to understand, Many Thanks!! Lillyput4455 (talk) 5th November 2022, 15:10 UTC.
 * Even having an about us page is insufficient. social media handles is not relevant to reliability, how does these sources have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Not every website needs to have "About us" page to depict their notability- alternatively, if we regard it as an unreliable site (WP:QUESTIONABLE) or as a self-published source, there is indeed an exception you are touching on, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. I see no evidence that the authors are Subject-matter expert, you should also see the contributors page of the ref. Therefore, instead of critiquing my comment as baseless I would appreciate an elaboration how it is a reliable source. Besides, the Dawn Images newspaper (not a full newspaper piece, just 113 words including the bolded caption) is reliable but fails WP:SIGCOV, you neglect that WP:GNG describes Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agreed with Lillyput4455(talk) point on the above. The subject is covered. If there is a film by the same subject name, it doesn't make sense to nominate the article just because you find information related to the film of that name and not the TV series. November 5, 15:45 UTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.33.225 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Already have a reliable reference of DAWN Images and now production details with The News International has also been added. Furthermore, the article has expanded to Plot summary too. Now, the enough information about the TV series has been added.Qwef1234 (talk)
 * Comment. I have started a RSN discussion. Also, my AfD rationale is that in addition to the current sources being inadequate per my analysis, my WP:BEFORE search didn't find sources that count towards GNG for the TV series. Per WP:DELREASON, criteria 8: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline is what I'm intending. Also, this new ref mentions this three times, first time as a trivial mention, second time part of a quote, and third instance providing basic plot and cast details, failing WP:SIGCOV and is mainly about Rehman. Another vote also seems to be resembling WP:POPULARITY IMO. Many thanks! Update: I've added a comment at WikiProject Television.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then What should be the source of a TV series? If TV series source wouldn't be about the cast and plot, then what else should you expect there? Infact there's a "Review" related reference too. On one hand you talk about WP:SIGCOV and neglects the sources pertaining to the issue and on the other hand you talk about WP:NOTABILITY mentioning the sources are not adequate. Many Thanks ! Lillyput4455 (talk) November 6, 2022, 16:04 UTC
 * In fact you neglect WP:GNG, and still do not provide a convincing case on providing multiple (emphasised this bold for you) independent, reliable, secondary refs that constitute of significant coverage. On one hand you talk about WP:SIGCOV and neglects the sources pertaining to the issue and on the other hand you talk about WP:NOTABILITY mentioning the sources are not adequate. Many Thanks- I have done an assessment of the current five sources as inadequate and did not find more sources that demonstrate notability, I would like you to explain concretely which sources I missed in contrast to this vague statement. The review piece is unreliable, instead of responding directly to my question how it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or that if it is treated as WP:SELFPUBLISHED, how are the authors subject-matter-experts? For the Dawn piece- Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Please articulate how an announcement column in the images section would not fall under this. Besides, WP:NTV is an essay but it states: It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot. Instead of vague statements of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and accusations of my inadequate WP:BEFORE search and source evaluation, I would appreciate that you could provide a proper sources evaluation yourself.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as article is a popular series citing from famous and international newspaper. It should stay on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.44.131 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep- The subject and article should stay on Wikipedia and have adequate strong sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.42.100 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 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.