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. I am swayed by the Comments that attest to the fact that the sources to not help establish notability for this television show. And even a stub article should adequately identify its subject. But this Delete decision does not rule out the possibility of a future article on this subject should new and better sources be found, ideally worked out in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bisaat[edit]

Bisaat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed draftification, moved back to main space with no changes/improvements. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have not reviewed the references, but that should not be necessary. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain how the subject show satisfies general notability or television notability. The subject show may be notable, but this article does not establish notability. Another article might be a keeper, but this is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this logic hard to follow. An article can exist as a valid stub, and you just stated that you did not actually look at the sources. matt91486 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Matt91486 - A valid stub explains briefly why the subject is notable, as opposed to stating only that the subject exists (and so may be run-of-the-mill). Wikipedia is written and developed primarily for the reader, not primarily for the editor. The reader expects to learn something by looking at a stub, rather than to be sent on a question to read the footnotes. The footnotes are required to support the core policy of verifiability, but most readers trust that we, the editors, have already done the verification. A stub should speak for itself. If one of the references contains important information, the stub should restate or summarize the important information. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / leaning Keep - this one might need an Urdu speaker to search for Urdu language references. Searching in English is difficult because of the similarly named Bisaat e Dil by the same creator on the same TV network. The 2nd and 3rd references are both moderately substantial and about the show itself, so if they are considered reliable they would contribute. matt91486 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Would really benefit from being a draft and further development, but with author moving to mainspace, judge as such. Not seeing how WP:GNG is met, needs more and better sources, ideally some reviews to show coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The references in the article are strong enough to make it reliable. (talk) 12:01, 17g February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a lot of sympathy with Robert McClenon on this. Wikipedia shouldn't be a meaningless catalogue of TV shows presented in such a way that the person who's seen the show learns nothing new, and the person who hasn't seen the show learns nothing at all. It's not enough to have only sources; there must also be some real, useful information. This one has none. I have no idea whether this is a documentary about life in a gas-station, a reality quiz-show or a police drama. Please, if we must have an article, let it say something! Elemimele (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would probably need an Urdu speaker to weigh in on this. English sources seem sparse, I can't even find an IMDb page for this show. The article itself looks like a valid stub, not unlike most other TV show stubs. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have reviewed the sources, and they don't add anything to the article. User:Lillyput4455 is mistaken, and the sources do not provide significant coverage of the series. The body of the stub article does not explain why the series is notable, and neither do the references

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 February 2022 (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.