Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teri Ik Nazar


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Teri Ik Nazar

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV: in a WP:BEFORE search I can only find the briefest mentions of the series, in articles about the actors who appeared in it. The rest was bootlegs of the series on social media. It was one of several series nominated for a Lux Style Award in 2010, but I can't see how this alone brings it over the line for WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only source that appears reliable is actually one that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Page likely only created to try to promote the Lux awards. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on references, seems reliable enough as a television series article to be published on site. An award winning show than how it can be not WP:Notable.182.182.8.51 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) — 182.182.8.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * SOCKSTRIKE, see Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335. Izno (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: The only coverage I can find is already used in the article and this, both of which are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (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.