Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The arguments for keeping amount to "it was broadcast on national TV", which does not correspond to any notability guideline (WP:TV and WP:NTV aren't one), and is not a substitute for the sources required per WP:V and WP:GNG.  Sandstein  08:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Renominating it because this subject still fails WP:GNG by a big margin with lack of reliable sources. To also address some things...the fact it is an adaptation of Good Luck Charlie means nothing considering WP:NOTINHERITED. Like it was said by the first nominator, it does not even pass WP:NTV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep nationally broadcast on a national tv station so is presumed notable, but those sources are not available online in English so there should be Urdu and offline sources. This AFD ended 20 Sept after a three week long listing so this nomination and similar others are disruptive Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Well see, presumed and should  is not what we are looking for in an AfD as per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. There needs to be sources and there needs to be facts, no assumptions. Just like there is not a proof the network it airs on is nationally broadcast (because it says Satellite Radio and IPTV for the said channel). And even then, it does not cover it, because WP:NTV also says the presence or absence of the sources is more important that the geographic range of the said program. Also, I did this because the first nom ended up as a No Consensus thing, so not really sure how is it disruptive in any kind, especially because I listed my reasons clearly and did not even create a new one so shortly after the closure. And for the end to highlight what Atlantic used but those sources are not available online in English as this is pretty important for a discussion here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As per WP:GNG non-English references are acceptable for notability Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Where did I state they are *not* acceptable though? I just highlighted the fact English sources may not be found so we should focus on the Urdu ones to be found if possible and save the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question for Can you please clarify whether you are arguing to "save the article", as the above comment seems to suggest, or you are arguing to delete the article, which is what the nomination seems to suggest? Bakazaka (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question . Wikipedia is WP:NOTCLEANUP so.... In this state of the article where no sources have been found, I am arguing to be deleted. But if there is a chance to save the article by finding reliable sources in Urdu like it was said (which I am unable to find), of course I would be OK. Nothing more, nothing less. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * will try an Urdu search tomorrow if poss, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment No problem, if Urdu sources are there I will be happily glad to shut down the AfD myself, also thanks for helping to contribute (I am actually glad we had a discussion here, no bad feelings)! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as the series broadcast on national TV which passes WP:TV and is currently airing. As soon as it will pick up pace and continue with new seasons I will try to add suitable references to it whether in Urdu or English. Thanks !Lillyput4455 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If you are saying as soon as it goes on.....so why is this not in draft then? WP:NTV you are calling on also said that absence of the sources is more important than the geographic range, we had this discussion already. I find it sad a sourceless article is going to be kept just because it airs on a national TV while having 2 people nominating for Keep also admitting there are no sources( there is also a good argument to be said how much is this show notable then if it has no reliable sources despite airing on national TV). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on the US version until such time as references are added. Deb (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Good Luck Charlie. Topic does not meet the notability guidelines per WP:TVSERIES as I argued in first nomination. This also fails WP:GNG. As a native Urdu speaker, I check and found zero coverage in Urdu language sources. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support Delete. --Saqib (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable remake of a TV-series, fails even GNG. Keep votes hinge on that sources exist (unable to find any), and WP:CRYSTALBALL that the series might become popular. Redirect won't be helpful as this series needs to be mentioned at Good Luck Charlie which we can't as sources aren't there (should be redirected if sources can be found to add a mention there). Gotitbro (talk) 17:12, 3 November 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.