Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Hai Chota Sa (3rd 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Hai Chota Sa

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from the original AfD back in November, there has been zero attempt to address the concerns raised by the deletion rationales and looking back over it, I still do not see how this show meets WP:NTV. None of the references are WP:SIGCOV of the television programme and no new ones were provided.

As there seemed to be a concerning over-appreciation of the sources last time by keep !voters, I have taken the liberty to assess these as below.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bungle**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worldcat.org/title/760226013	User-generated content	Database entry	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/566273-workouts-keep-fresh-active		News article about a cast member that doesn't discuss the show, except to confirm she is in it	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/709333/drama-serials-fitting-the-bill	Disclaimer at bottom of page notes content is written by a blogger and views not representative of Dawn Media Group	Merely a three-sentence basic synopsis. Even the other shows noted on this page discuss its respective programme more.	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/article/65715/pakistani-dramas-are-romanticising-rape-and-brothels-but-saying-the-word-talaaq-is-the-real-problem/		A two-sentence passing mention around a wider discussion of rape/divorce	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:STICK. Three AfDs, all by the same nominator, in under five months? Regardless of the merits of the case, my default position is that that's not a healthy level of interest in one particular article. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: With all due respect, we have had only 1 meaningful discussion on this matter in 5 months (the original AfD), and the 2nd AfD, while ill-timed, did not amount to a further discussion which would justify your use of WP:STICK (and you even allude to WP:RENOM in that instance). Evidently I have a view on this article, and there have not been developments or further improvements to change my opinion. When we have a subject matter for which no clear consensus has been determined, it's entirely reasonable to retry in reaching that consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be entirely correct, but I worry to see the pattern. RENOM is not mandatory, but a suggested minimum before renomination. Given the non-U.S. nature of the show, I strongly worry about systemic bias and our poor ability to find and use sources in other languages. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that is a more reasonable position to take than WP:STICK, it amounts to WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is also a position that should be avoided. The series didn't have much in the way of longevity, and while episode count is not an outright basis for asserting or discounting notability, it's less likely to be notable than say, a series that had a considerably longer run. I would expect anyone voting to keep to back this up with evidence to counter the nomination. Ultimately, this article should not have been created without sufficient sources offered to demonstrate notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For lack of better sources at this writing (or until they show up), redirect to original station Geo Entertainment or director Angeline Malik per lede. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lacks sufficient and significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with Jclemens here. The references cited are notable newspaper and websites in the country which are independent covering the subject. I see no point in nominating the article again and again when it does have adequate sources which are WP:Reliable and WP: Independent. TheAnasKhan (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have not read a word of my nomination statement. I also see you have created a similar type of article which is already listed at AfD, so i'd question your judgement when it comes to understanding notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Afd is in progress on my article though it is not nominated third time by the same nominator. I'm new here but I know what does Notability means, mere nominations doesn't justify your reason or statements to delete the article. TheAnasKhan (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Delete The only improvement from the previous AfDs is Reception section and addition of 1 ref, references are not establishing notability at all, showing a failure per WP:GNG clear source assessment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note TheAnasKhan is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the source eval table. Fails GNG and NTV. BEFORE showed normal promo and listings, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.