Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Pakistan

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. Wide support for the idea that available sources far exceeded WP:GNG (also SNOW) j⚛e decker ^talk 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Pakistan

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

Just a BBC documentary film on Pakistan, I do not see how this satisfies WP:NF or why it needs a stub article of its own. The documentary has zero academic coverage. Mar4d (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article needs work, yes, but so what?

This exposé/documentary, which reveals Pakistan's alleged links to enemy forces in Afghanistan, is significant insofar as it forced Pakistan to ban BBC World News owing to its “anti-Pakistan” content. And you say it's not notable enough?
google search gives more than 100,000 hits.
Are you being sarcastic? Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(New section?)} 07:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And not surprisingly, how many of those "100,000 hits" are about the documentary? It has zero coverage in academic sources. Mar4d (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is up to you to discern. But I would say, sufficiently many are about the secret pakistan documentary. Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(New section?)} 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary broadcast 9 months ago is hardly likely to be covered in academic sources, which typically have a lead time of more than a year. Press coverage is however sufficent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has surely many sources. Clearly notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources (I've added some to article). Coverage of TV program[1][2][3][4]. Ratings[5]. Coverage of subsequent row over program[6][7][8][9][10][11] and CSM article previously cited. Also lots of info on BBC website if you want background info (credits, etc) to improve the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, when a state begins to ban and censor documentary's it is an obviously noteworthy thing to have an article on. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep and allow continued improvements per WP:NRVE. I note that WP:BEFORE shows that the topic met WP:GNG and WP:NF before being nominated for deleition... and simply needed work. And to the nominator, film topics NEVER need "academic coverage" in order to be ascertainable as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – Per WP:NRVE and because the topic passes WP:GNG. Examples include: [12], [13], [14].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (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.