Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 Talaqain

101 Talaqain

[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)

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try with relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Although sources appear to be from local and Pakistani sites, we cannot just assume they are unreliable. The series seems to have enough coverage in its own country to be notable. In particular, here are some of the better coverage 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Hkkingg (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hkkingg, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are either content farms or WP:UGC sites. Having said that, these websites may not meet our standards for WP:V, let alone establishing GNG. Source # 3 and 4 have the same URLs. While Dawn Images is considered a RS but this particular coverage seems to be no more than a PR announcing the launch of the show. I believe for establishing GNG requires a high level of coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sources again and can confirm that they are not user-generated content. I'm not sure what you mean by "content farm," but these sites appear to offer legitimate reviews of the TV Series. It's important not to dismiss sites simply because they are Pakistani or not based in the US; such an assumption doesn't automatically equate to low quality. You'll need to provide a stronger rationale and clearer explanation for why these sites are unacceptable. I understand you're trying to defend your nomination, but it seems like you might be stretching for reasons to avoid appearing as though you've made a poor nomination.

Also here are some additional sources that I have just found:

https://socialdiary.pk/zahid-ahmed-acing-dark-comedy-in-101-talaqain/

https://fuchsiamagazine.com/zahid-ahmed-takes-on-marriage-woes-in-upcoming-drama-comedy-101-talaqain/

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/710739-Zahid-Ahmed-hitting-the-screens-as-lead-in-101-Talaqain

https://www.independenturdu.com/node/152791

https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199629 Hkkingg (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you're new to WP, I recommend familiarizing yourself with our policy on WP:RS. Many of the websites you mentioned are WP:UGC platforms that accept guest posts and paid placements, therefore, they do not meet the standards for establishing WP:GNG. Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are WP:GUNREL. While coverage in Dawn News and Dunya News coverage is not sig/in-depth and also without by-line which suggest they are paid placements and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage in Independent Urdu is based on an interview therefore is WP:PRIMARY. The issue isn't about the origin of these websites but rather the credibility of the sources. There are plenty of Pakistani sources acceptable for WP usage, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. Further, I'll ping @S0091: so they can review these sources and offer their opinion, too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I cannot offer my opinion per WP:CANVASS. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Well I'm not asking for your vote, just your opinion on the quality of the sources provided by @Hkkingg, which is permitted, I guess. Given your expertise, you're better equipped to assess the sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. You are not pinging a range of editors with various opinions, only me. As you know, I have participated in a few similar AfDs, have expressed an opinion on many of these sources and thus far have !voted delete in all of them. It may not have been you intent to canvass but you are. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing. Hkkingg has been editing WP for over a year. He is not "new to WP" at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Hkkingg only has 323 edits so I assumed they might be new here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed so, but he is not. And 323 edits is not "new", I'd say, especially when you have participated in a number of AfDs, as is the case. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I do not consider myself a new editor, as I have been making edits for over a year and have participated in many AFDs. You have provided no details or evidence to support the claim that the sources I suggested are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. Your blanket statement that they are all low quality seems unjust. Surely in comparison to American publications, they probably are of lower quality, but can't assume unreliable or paid articles without a deep analysis of the reasons, which you have failed to provide. However, the extensive coverage this series has received in its own country attests to its notability. Claiming that every single source is unreliable or paid for is unreasonable. Hkkingg (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the WP page for the channel Green Entertainment that aired this show has been deleted due to 1. UPEs, 2. socking and 3. insufficient WP:N. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]