Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirf Tum (2023 TV series)

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 redirect‎ to 7th Sky Entertainment#Current programmes as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 05:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirf Tum (2023 TV series)

[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 drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this, this and even this is not enough to meet GNG. Point to note, The News which produced the media coverage and Geo TV that aired this TV show are part of the same Jang Media Group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sameeerrr because sources serve two purposes:verifiability and notability. A source may be fine to satisfy verifiability but not meet the criteria to support notability. I told you the same at WP:Articles for deletion/Tumhare Husn Ke Naam a couple days ago. If you have not already, I suggest reading WP:THREE and WP:GNG which outlines the four criteria a source needs to meet for notability. S0091 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:GNG. As the sources cited in Tumhare Husn Ke Naam and other WP:AfD, it's quite notable publications pulling up these subjects like BBC, DAWN, The Nation, Daily Times and Jang. Similar nature sources are cited in series articles like Behind Her Eyes, Midnight Texas, Krishnadasi etc. In the articles related to WP:TELEVISION these are supposed to be adequate enought to establish WP:GNG. Sameeerrr (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Note: NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE.....hmmm WP:THREE is .....an essay too, :D!.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Mushy Yank Exactly! Thank you for pointing that out.Sameeerrr (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TrendingSocial is a WP:blog post (the source appears to be a content farm), The News is a press release/announcement, Galaxy Lollywood is a blog, Geo Television network is a primary source and not independent, and Samaaa is a press release (trailer). None of the sources meet GNG criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on Google search there are sources available which can be incorporated in the article to improve WP:GNG. Sameeerrr (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sameeerrr Please present WP:THREE you believe meet GNG so they can be assessed. Saying sources exist is not enough especially given so far you have not shown (yet) you understand the GNG sourcing criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, WP:COMPETENCE is missing. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to seem that way, yes. Prior to their comment above, I told them on their talk page saying sources exists is not enough in addition to now twice explaining WP:V vs. WP:N. @Sameeerrr the other thing is if you continue making poor arguments, closers will ignore your Keep !votes or give them less weight. Bear in mind, AfD is not a vote (thus !vote, with ! meaning "not"). Closers assess the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. S0091 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 it's not just about adding sources. The show is WP:NOTABLE, only if it wasn't, why'd it be covered by the major newspapers, media outlets and I mentioned Google search cause that's how we look out for subject coverage. WP:AfD mentions it too to look out for the material. And there was a timing difference, I saw your comment here first and your message on my talk later. IMO, I still think that it deserves to stay on Wikipedia or can be improved with sources rather than being here for WP:AfD Sameeerrr (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Redirect to 7th_Sky_Entertainment#Current_programmes (other targets can be considered). There are the various references in the article, or mentioned above, not all them very good (although Galaxy Lolllywood does not seem to be a blog in the common acception of that term, at least (=personal)). Some coverage about a controversial scene. There is also:

A bylined article in Hello India, that wrote Sirf Tum revolves around Abeer, Hanan and Hamza, played by Anmol Baloch, Hamza Sohail and Mohsin Abbas Haider. Abeer’s return from abroad sparks clashes with her traditional family, leading to a broken engagement with rebellious Hamza. A forced marriage with responsible Hanan ensues, marked by initial reluctance. As they navigate challenges, Abeer and Hanan’s bond deepens into a strong friendship. Hamza’s interference with Sarah adds complexity, but Abeer and Hanan overcome misunderstandings, declare their love and promise to stay together forever. With a backdrop of rebellion and societal norms, the narrative poses questions about love, resilience and the pursuit of happiness.

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, This is ROTM coverage and Galaxy Lollywood is PR agency. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ROTM", according to you. And GL is now a "PR agency", I thought it was "a blog"? Is it both? (rhetorical, no need to reply (:D)) What I see and what they claim to be is an "online entertainment portal" and the review is bylined and does not look so bad. Anyway, if everyone agrees all that there is is insufficient my !vote is K or at least R. Allow me to leave at that, thank you. (=Sorry in advance if I don't reply to any potential new comments.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn profile of GL's founder says he's into digital marketing, PR, Social Media, Branding etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very moved by that information, to be honest. Again, allow me to leave it at that, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:42, 18 May 2024 (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.