Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Hai Chota Sa

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Dil Hai Chota Sa}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Dil Hai Chota Sa}})

Not seeing how this is a notable television show. Aired for only 17 episodes (if the infobox is accurate) for a brief period of time without indication that it received any WP:SIGCOV. The citations offered are either db entries or passing mentions. Previously deleted via PROD around the time of its airing with similar concerns. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep- The citations mentioned are of popular newspapers i.e, of Express Tribune and Dawn. The [https://www.dawn.com/news/709333/drama-serials-fitting-the-bill ref 3] has synopsis of the series while [https://tribune.com.pk/article/65715/pakistani-dramas-are-romanticising-rape-and-brothels-but-saying-the-word-talaaq-is-the-real-problem/ ref. 2] analysis the series critically, and praised its writing. Thus, it should not be considered for deletion. However, a template of more citations can be added.Qwef1234 (talk)

::Please tell me which of the citations are actually covering this programme in any meaningful way? One is a database-like entry, another is a bio of an actor, another is a passing mention and the other is barely worth including. The one you note as being "critical analysis" falls far short of being significant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - An article should speak for itself and tell the reader what is notable, without requiring the reader to check the references. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep meets V, NTV (aired nationally), and multiple lead actors appear notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, why does it matter if series have 17 or less episodes? Wikipedia does have articles on short or miniseries as well. As far as WP:SIGCOV is concern, references does cover the subject in detail along with the synopsis. Also serial ensemble popular actors recognized internationally, keeping all this in mind, I believe it should stay. Lillyput4455 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

::The issue I see isn't the episode count, as I am fully aware a drama can have very few and be very notable, but on this occasion my point is that I don't see evidence this drama lasted long enough to sustain notability, possibly in part due to its short run. Which references cover this programme in detail? Also, a show can not assume inherited notability just because some cast are notable for other works (also in relation to Jclemens point above). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete no coverage found that is beyond a passing mention. We need in-depth, sustained coverage of the program in order to keep this here, we don't have it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails notability. There's a catalog listing as a source (not in depth), an interview with an actress in the show that only name drops the show, the Dawn piece is a very short paragraph and at best is a puff piece with no actual coverage. Similarly, the Tribune source has a very brief coverage of the show. The article lacks any sources with actual in depth coverage of the show. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject is an award winning TV show, starring renowned artists of the country. The sources does indicate the notability of the series, and are from strong international sites i.e, Tribune and Dawn. There is space for improvement but it should stay on Wikipedia rather than being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.91.151 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• :Notability is not inherited from {{tq|renowned artists}}, and saying that the references are {{tq|international sites}} without stating how SIGCOV is met seems unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

:This IP editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

::The credibility and relevance towards notability demonstration of the aforementioned sources has already been discounted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. [https://www.worldcat.org/title/760226013 Ref 1] is a database, [https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/566273-workouts-keep-fresh-active this] ref is a trivial mention, [https://www.dawn.com/news/709333/drama-serials-fitting-the-bill Dawn] ref is a three sentence very short paragraph (non-SIGCOV), whereas this is another [https://tribune.com.pk/article/65715/pakistani-dramas-are-romanticising-rape-and-brothels-but-saying-the-word-talaaq-is-the-real-problem/ short] one paragraph coverage. Yes, the references are WP:RS, but SIGCOV is a requirement, which none of the references here meet IMO. My WP:BEFORE also did not find sufficiently SIGCOV-meeting sources. VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.