Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aapa Shameem

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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Aapa Shameem

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Aapa Shameem (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)

YouTube series that fails notability guidelines. Sourcing is unreliable or social media links. Twice decliend at AfC and an attempted move back to draftspace as an WP:ATD was obejcted to by creator. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the AfC reviewers @Gheus: and @WikiMentor01: who declined the draft previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Being a publisher of the article, wants to correct certain points mentioned by nominator as rationale for deletion.

1. It is not a You Tube series. It was aired on a national broadcast network, confirmed here by DAWN as network and its air time is mentioned right next to its title.
2. There is not a single social media link presented as a reference in the article. Also, sources mentioned such as DAWN, The Nation, Samaa TV, Independent Urdu, The Express Tribune, BizAsiaLive (UK-based TV ratings), and ARY News, all are editorially independent platforms with established reputations, satisfying the requirements of WP:RS.

Now addressing the WP:GNG and WP:NENT, a television program is considered notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources that are independent of both the subject and each other. The sources listed covers Aapa Shameem from several perspectives regarding its casting, thematic depth, audience reactions, debut performances (Zoha Tauqeer is the main lead of the show and makes her debut with the show, therefore, few sources emphasizes on her specifically), and overall reception. Notably, DAWN’s critical column “The Tube” and The Express Tribune’s YouTube trend (as serial is uploaded on You Tube by the broadcast network official channel) analysis offer analytical content, not just superficial mentions or press releases. These types of coverage meet the threshold for non-trivial, secondary analysis. More over, presented below are the sources covering the show significantly and are indepedent of the subject.

1. South Asia - The article is published in a regional magazine which highlights the plot, cast and broadcast details of the show.
2. [Independent Urdu - Here the article is in local language and title of the source is translated as "Aapa Shameem: Good for few and Bad for the others". Independent Urdu is the Pakistani variant for the british The Independent.
3. DAWN - Gives an insight of the show confirming the broadcast and theme of the show. Not just a trivial mention.

Like mentioned above there are other sources besides them as well which makes the article notable in context of WP:GNG and WP:NENT.Reshmaaaa (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep; I am satisfied with the sources presented by Reshmaaaa and their analysis and think this article about a popular show with a notable cast can be kept in the Main space as it meets the notability requirements.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete : Coverage are entirely biased and have promotional tone. clearly lacks neutrality. Most are in the form of releases or passing mentions. Not a single in depth article to support notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please mention which sources are just passing mentions? Are you saying DAWN and Independent have been biased while publishing with regards to their editorial standards? Do you think [1] and [2] are not in depth? Reshmaaaa (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis table would be useful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Added another DAWN critical column here covering the show's plot in dept, not merely passing mentions.Reshmaaaa (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep notable as per above references provided by Reshmaaaa. Behappyyar (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

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.