This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
@
Mushy Yank: I object to the unilateral move of the article from draft NS to main NS without prior review, and particularly due to the inclusion of sources such as Galaxy Lollywood, BollywoodShaadis, ReviewIt etc, which are regarded as unreliable. I suggest you to follow proper procedure by submitting it for review. —
Saqib (
talk)
16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also the
assertion that The film received a very positive review in Dawn is inaccurate, as the
author is not a Dawn staffer but rather a guest contributor. Moreover, the piece was published in the Comments section of Dawn Images, indicating it does not represent an official review by the publication. —
Saqib (
talk)
16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The controversy (I added a section about it that now happens to be unsourced for reasons that the page history can explain) and the existence of by-lined reviews (one being negative) make it appear notable enough imv. Now, if everyone agrees this should be redirected, feel free (to
Momina Duraid, for example). I am absolutely opposed to this being sent back to DRAFT, though. As for Youlin and Fuchsia, I think they might be acceptable for opinion pieces, such as film/series reviews. (The "small consensus" (small indeed) about Fuchsia referred to at NPPSG is based on the RSN board minimalist discussion where one user states: Ultimately it looks like many other celebrity / entertainment magazines, generally unreliable and definitely unreliable for anything controversial, which does not convince me it can not be used for reviews of works of fiction (//TOI) There's absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable that I am aware of. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmm, maybe that one's a little better than the others, but it doesn't even offer its own opinion and just says "critics say", which isn't too helpful. But, I think the other two sources previously discussed should be removed; they are not reliable. All in all, I don't think there is sufficient coverage for a "critics" section, not even mentioning
WP:GNG.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite repeated mentions in various AfDs, it seems there's a reluctance to acknowledge the unreliability of all of these sources and this situation somewhat resembles WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I understand that my comment might come across as negative, but it's not my intention to cause further annoyance. However, I've also felt discouraged when my legit concerns I've raised above have been met with responses, such as a "SIGH," instead of addressing the issue with clarification. And for what it's worth, even Social Diary/Sunday Magazine doesn't REALY meet the criteria of a RS due to its
very small editorial team, consisting of only two members. Not sure if it might be suffice for WP:V purposes but it falls short for establishing GNG . —
Saqib (
talk)
15:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite repeated mentions in various AfDs,it seems there's a reluctance to acknowledge the unreliability of all of these sources: if you are talking about me, allow me to sigh again. There's no "reluctance". I happen to have disagreed with your appraisal in various AFDs or articles and I think I clarified why every time I had the time and patience.
this situation somewhat resembles WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yes, maybe, indeed. For example, stating Social Diary/Sunday Magazine doesn't REALY meet the criteria of a RS due to its very small editorial team: that's at least, again, your appraisal and I beg to differ, so if you just REPEAT sometime later "I told you Social Diary is not RS", I will probably still disagree, although I heard you the first time and did tell you, that's all. Same for Youlin, and various sources. You're probably always right and I, always wrong. This time I sighed (or did I SIGH?) because reinstating the template notability and command me to "Submit for review" was not exactly the process and tone I like in discussions (I didn't even check the Dawn/Images part). I have no further comments. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Mushy Yank, I, too, don't have any further comments to add. I may just redirect this or, if necessary, take it to AfD because this clearly fails GNG. And also, I don't see any issue with my tone, as well. —
Saqib (
talk)
18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Donaldd23: Given your usual strict adherence to GNG, I'm unsure what I'm missing here as I find it doesn't meet the GNG I value your expertise and any insight would be appreciated. --
Saqib (
talk)
13:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC).reply