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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deewana (TV series)[edit]

Deewana (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. The tag was removed without any independent sources showing notability being added - the only source is a brief teaser about the upcoming series, published before anything was known about it. Searching for sources only yields hits for the 1992 movie by the same name. bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as was broadcast on a national television station, sources are very hard to find for these Pakistan television series so hopefully some editors from Pakistan can provide some offline sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If sources appear, then yes, notability will be shown - the problem now is, however, that it is not shown, and I'm not sure it is a good idea to keep it on the grounds that sources might potentially exist out there. There's been a lot of similar articles about brand-new TV series, and almost none of them has sources. Local editors are often more eager to add text about interesting plot points than dull stuff like reliable sources. That is not strange and the editors are all acting in good faith, but unfortunately it makes for articles that contain a lot of unsourced meandering plot description and no actual verification of anything. --bonadea contributions talk 11:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @Bonadea: If reliable sources exist, regardless of whether they are currently cited within the article, then we should keep. We don't delete articles because of the current state of an article, but on the potential state of the article. "If this article was improved to the best it could be, would it be worth including?" is the question we should ask, not "Does the article suck right now?" Additionally, we have a duty to fight systemic bias on wikipedia. It's harder to get sources for foreign subjects such as this, and so some are more eager to jump the gun towards deleting them, when in fact, we SHOULD be doing the opposite-- that is to say, give the benefit of the doubt, and allow more time than usuall for native/fluent speakers of the foreign language to come up with more sources. For publically broadcasted television programs, the likelyhood of independent sources is higher than with other things, so DEFINITELY give this one the benefit of the doubt. At this time, I'd only !vote delete iff a fluent pakistani speaker made a statement that they could find no sources, and/or that this is a very minor program. Fieari (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you addressed me here, because most of what you wrote agrees with what I said above :-) Yes, as I said, if there are reliable sources, of course the article should be kept. Since there are no reliable sources in the article, we cannot know whether they exist, or at least I can't. The programme is by all account very new, and so it is quite likely that it might become notable in the future - of course we don't delete articles "because they suck right now" (and I never made any such claim about this article!), this discussion is not about the state of the article but about the notability of the subject as shown right now. There would be no prejudice against recreating the article if notability were shown later on. Since I am neither American nor male I am extremely familiar with systemic bias issues on Wikipedia. I do not agree that such issues are best fought by keeping articles on subjects that are not shown to be notable; nobody is served by that, to my mind. But that is of course just a matter of opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 15:27, 4 June 2016 (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.