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. As discussed below, the cited sources only establish notability of the people in the show, not the show itself. Deryck C. 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aalim Online (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)

This online show seems to fail WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. There is plenty of advertising out there, plus the episodes itself, but essentially nothing in independent sources that is not in fact about the host or GeoTV. BenTels (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The show and its host has been the subject of a lot of controversy over years. This section has 6 references to that controversy. There is also another ref in this article. I'm sure more can be looked up if needed. - The Determinator p t c 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah. Couple of things about that:
    1. Notability is not inherited. So even if the host of the show is notable for having stirred up or been part of controversies, that doesn't automatically carry over into notability of the show.
    2. The reference for the controversy (the only one currently listed for the article) is not really about the show. It is in fact a statement by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community urging condemnation of persecution of their community and of the host of the show and the way he acted in the controversy. The name of the show is mentioned once to identify the episode in which the host allowed the behavior to occur that they object to. This means that the source is:
       • partisan, therefore not a reliable source; and
       • not a source that demonstrates notability of the show (the host perhaps, but not the show).
    3. There is a reticence on Wikipedia for one-event notability, certainly for people. I'm not aware offhand of any rule that actually forbids it for a webcast, but I personally don't think a show (on the web or on TV or elsewhere) can (or should) in general be considered notable for one particular event that took place on that show. If there were more to say about the show than just that it exists and this controversy happened, I would not have any objections. But right now I don't see it. -- BenTels (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is NOT a webcast. It's TV show that has been the subject of a few controversies. The controversies were stirred up on the show. I think that makes it notable. - The Determinator p t c 15:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have sources for more than just one of them? -- BenTels (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article has 8 words and 3 names. There was so much controversy, it is worth 8 words? One of the names already exists in Aamir Liaquat Hussain, so merge the 8 words and the other 2 names in there somewhere. The immense size of the article indicates it could not be notable for anything except possibly the shortest article in the Wiki still in Main space --  :- ) Don 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article length is not a valid criteria to delete it. Please go review those policies before comment on any more AFDs. -Thunderite (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The point was not the length. The POINT was how notability because it is controversial can be conveyed by "XXX was a TV show on YYY. It was hosted by ZZZ"? The way it reads now, it can be a Keep. Sheeze. --  :- ) Don 22:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Uhm... Sorry, no, I don't agree. Yes, several more sources have been added to the article. But they are of the same type as the original source, i.e. they are about the host (or about Pakistani televangelists in general) and not about the show. I still don't see notability for the show anywhere. -- BenTels (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Thanks for that BenTels. Reversing my Keep. Baby and Bathwater, just delete that puppy. --  :- ) Don 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: I just want to add that these controversies took place ON THE SHOW. It's not like that host went home and stirred up these controversies. All the coverage is about the events that took place on the show. Many sources mention this. If you want I can add about a dozen more saying the same thing. - The Determinator p t c 23:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: They may have taken place on the show or not. The problem is that the article doesn't cite any sources to that effect. More to the point, the article doesn't cite any sources that say anything at all about the show. They have lots to say about the host (and I'll buy his notability, no problem -- but the article isn't about him). You need sources that are actually about the show, not just sources that mention the show in passing (at most, since not all of the current sources even mention the show at all). -- BenTels (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to the deletion commentaries above, the text clearly states; "In another episode it was claimed that the color of soles of the shoes that Pakistan cricket team wear had contributed to the their defeat" - this is boldly within the ideology of WP:CRYSTAL, as nothing but a medium would be able to fathom that "example" of notability - so also WP:NN on that accord. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: It is not WP:CRYSTAL It is a sourced comment about something that happened in the past and is verifiable Please read the policies before referencing them. The Determinator p t c 21:36, 18 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.