Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No issue, lelo tissue


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No issue, lelo tissue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find in-depth coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. Dee 03  17:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Störm   (talk)  17:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Phrase is of Urdu language and there would be related coverage in the Urdu-language newspapers. Some refs are already there for WP:V purpose. Störm   (talk)  17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply stating that there "would be" other sources is not going to suffice. Urdu sources can also be added to the article if at all they exist and are found. Two of the sources currently in the article - Pakistan Today and Daily Pakistan - are verbatim copies of each other. The NDTV source has a mere passing mention of the advert. The only other source is india.com which some editors do not consider to be WP:RS. The topic fails WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article and is already covered in a single line in Mauka Mauka. Dee  03  18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply going through Category:Television commercials by country will tell that there are dozens of article related to the TV ads and it depends on country to country. In Pakistani case, this is the most notable TV ad. Störm   (talk)  18:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I will vote later if you tell me that if there can be an article about Indian advertisement Mauka Mauka, then why not about a Pakistani ad that was actually a reply to that? It would be better if an encyclopedia contains articles related to both ads that were made as a result of cricket rivalry. Knightrises10 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Mauka Mauka simply because of the sheer amount of coverage that the advertisement campaign has received. Your argument on why this article should be kept seems to revolve around WP:OTHERSTUFF which should be avoided in a deletion discussion. Dee  03  18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I say it should be kept? I asked a question and you answered. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may not have actually voted but, from what I can comprehend, your comment does read like you are making an argument for keep. Dee  03  14:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep According to this source, the commercial vent viral and was repeatedly "aired on every channel in Pakistan". Apparently, it is not an ordinary commercial judging by the response received. This article says it is one of the most-viewed Pakistani commercials, receiving 4.3 million hits under 19 hours.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Aired on every channel in Pakistan" sounds like the source is WP:SENSATIONALizing the response for the advert. Also fame/popularity does not equal to notability, so the response or the number of views for the advert does not automatically make the topic notable - see WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:FACTORS. Dee  03  14:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  Dee  03  14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Dee  03  14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because of significant coverage in secondary sources that have been added to the article. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't much coverage in secondary sources, at least in the article. Knightrises10 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But we are missing Urdu/Sindhi language sources. Störm   (talk)  16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three keeps, but little in the way of secondary sources being added?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP Meets criteria. Has significant coverage. This is an example. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2018 (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.