Working Women (TV series): ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.  Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page.  In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : With quite a few WP:RS cited in the article.  Also, the sources you mentioned in the nomination's rationale do help in meeting WP:GNG .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cocobb8 , I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.  And the ones I provided in my nomination aiove are not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage.  not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above.   A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered significant coverage.  Hope this clarifies.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Saqib : Sources like this and this do help in potentially establishing WP:GNG , but I'll leave it to other editors to see what they think as well.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG.  --— Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  A source review/analysis would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I too do believe the Youlin review and the Daily Pakistan one cannot be dismissed.  They're signed and the periodicals cannot be considered unreliable.  The piece in Feminism in India has one paragraph: Working Women showcases the realities of women in the modern society of the 21st century.  The story overcomes biases and embraces the range of experiences because of the characters’ intersectionality, which enables it to touch on a number of facets of womanhood.  Every woman is a representation of a certain aspect of the difficulties women encounter while pursuing a successful career and personal life.  The drama encourages viewers to consider the expectations society places on women as it progresses.  It also establishes a new benchmark for poignant and significant storytelling.  The 2 paragraphs in Dawn , mentioned by Saqib, are not "routine" and I find the opening statement rather significant: While most commercial shows offer us a carefully sanitised version of life, scripts from writer Bee Gul show us a world with all the rough edges and inconsistencies intact.  Lucy aka Nusrat (Maria Wasti) is a wealthy real estate agent for urban elites.  The first episode shows her pondering her fate as a lonely, single woman heading towards middle age, while her friends are comfortably married with children.  By episode three, she has a disparate collection of women to keep her company as paying guests.  The credit for making this set-up believable goes to director Yasra Rizvi and the actresses playing each paying guest character: Srha Asghar plays Amber, a bitter, poor little rich girl who has lost her home because of a boyfriend; Faiza Gilani plays Hashmat, a woman escaping sexual harassment; Ilsa Hareem is a runaway teenage bride; and there are more.  And the rest of the sources include mostly interviews but allow verification of the cast/date, production history and basic facts.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 21 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus