Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters (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 delete. Consensus below exists that the nominator's argument, that the current sourcing does not meet SIGCOV, is a correct interpretation of this article's notability. Those opposing this viewpoint have not, in my view, done enough to counter this argument which is based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Masters (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a non-RS magazine that was started in 2013 by a bunch of Pakistani girls...with the objective of raising awareness of Pakistan as per here with no editorial policies, ref 2 is another non-RS with no editorial policies but aim to publish juicy and tasteful content for young Pakistans, ref 3 is a four sentence non-SIGCOV announcement, ref 4 is non-RS (no policies), ref 5 is another minor announcement mainly covering the stars and teaser, falling under minor news stories, ref 6 is a gossipy non-RS celebrity site, ref 7 is a short non-SIGCOV three sentences announcement, ref 8 is a database, whereas ref 9 is a listicle listing the cast (non-SIGCOV). Was submitted (not even shortlisted for an award), but otherwise given the current refs and little found per my WP:BEFORE, it fails WP:GNG. Draftification by User:Onel5969 contested by User:Lillyput4455.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep- Despite how many references I add, as per User:VickKiang it'll never be enough, as he always find loopholes in it. However,he himself admitted that the sources does cover the subject. Sources included are websites, popular in the country. The show emerged as a popular drama of it's kind. Further, what if it wasn't shortlisted for nomination. It was submitted tho and the fact should be mentioned. All in all, it should stay on Wikipedia since article itself cover the show indepth plus there are multiple sources, not just one or two sources having a passing mention.Lillyput4455 (talk) 20:00 UTC, 23rd December 2022.
 * However,he himself admitted that the sources does cover the subject. Sources included are websites, popular in the country. You keep iterating that websites are popular, but popularity is not the same with reliability and WP:SIGCOV. Your articles have a high number of references, but that is not synomous with notability. It is better to articulate which two or three references you believe count towards WP:GNG, instead of this vague comment. Thank you.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - current sourcing does not meet WP:SIGCOV, and searches did not turn up enough to pass GNG. Redirecting would be okay if a proper target can be found. Onel 5969  TT me 23:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep referencing is fine, these magazines and tabloids are the only sources focused more on covering tv industry in Pakistan. Dawn, Express Tribune etc are the main English dailies in Pakistan and don't cover tv industry in the country significantly. Secondly they also don't cover it enough because of their parent organisation having rivalry with other tv networks. So we can't single iut these websites like that. Can you expect random American tv series to have referencing only from New York Times or Washington Post and if not then delete. Muneebll (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you expect random American tv series to have referencing only from New York Times or Washington Post- I was not expecting coverage from sources listed WP:RS on WP:RSP, just references that could count towards WP:GNG. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks SIGCOV and now there are less chances the series will get any media reviews in future once it is completed in Sep 2022. Insight 3 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Express Entertainment: Not enough significant coverage in the sources, scraper sites or casual mentions  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, article does have sources and content and should have an article about it. It have all the elements related to a TV show in it. Plus thereare adequate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.36.240 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Listing it in the "Former programming" section of Express Entertainment is enough. Mooonswimmer 04:27, 4 January 2023 (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.