Haseeb Hassan : The Times of India reference has a brief blurb about him, but that's nowhere near sufficient for notability , and searching, I find a few name drops and brief mentions, puff pieces/press release looking material and a couple things about some spat on Twitter he was involved in, but nothing even approaching enough to write a comprehensive biography.  Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No have any reliable sources.  only film reviews Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable as director of various notable dramas (that received reviews, as mentioned above), which makes him meet the following criteria: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per the sources cited, none gives significant coverage and there also not reliable.  Noneate ( talk ) 17:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A lame smattering of sources, once one defenestrates listings and advertorials, do not for notability provide.  The subject has been busy but their work has never reached the level of notability one would consider enough for a stand-alone article here.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am inclined to ! vote Keep here after looking at Diyar-e-Dil .  Going through the references cited in Diyar-e-Dil#Critical_reception , it is clear that the portion of WP:DIRECTOR mentioned above has been met.  Perhaps the dearth of sources specifically about this director means that the article will be sparse, but going by that guideline, this guy is notable.  Not just "sources are presumed to exist", but "notable".  In some cases multiple reviews were written by the same author, so here are three examples that should provide enough evidence that there are "multiple independent reviews" with the "primary subject" being a movie Hassan created: [2] [3] [4] As a bonus, some of the reviews actually do mention Hassan multiple times, like this one: [5] A more in-depth review could find something I missed that invalidates this argument, so please feel free to poke holes if you find any.  Toadspike ( talk ) 09:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps, I was hasty in discounting the criteria for a film director .  Let's see in detail.  Important figure or widely cited by peers or successors : No sign of that whatsoever.  Known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique : No; no; and no.  Created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.  Such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews : The serial Diyar-e-dil gathered a few listings-cum-presentations in mid-2015 when it aired and has since sunk without a trace.  His work or works has become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums : No sign of anything out of that list.  I see no strong reason to change my suggestion.  As to  the fact that the article was curated by a single-purpose account ten years ago, that's just a collateral consideration.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not especially well-versed in the application of WP:DIRECTOR #3, especially in the key issue of how "significant" is defined, so I don't want to come across as stubborn, but I believe Diyar-e-dil is "significant" enough.  Criterium #3 does not state that everything with multiple independent reviews is "significant" per se , but it doesn't provide any better metric, so by my subjective analysis I think Diyar-e-dil clears the bar.  Going off of its Wikipedia article: Diyar-e-dil had reasonably high ratings in the world's fifth-largest country (FWIW the "rank" values in the article cannot be verified from the provided links).  It got quite a few thorough (and incidentally positive) reviews outside of listicles .  It even won some of the Lux Style Awards , which are not only independent, but also seem to be the most significant awards a TV show can win in Pakistan.  I understand that it may not seem like much, but this begs the question of what more could it reasonably have achieved as a TV show in Pakistan?  WP:DIRECTOR specifically requires only one of the four criteria to be met, indicated by the or after each item.  As for "[it] has since sunk without a trace", WP:DIRECTOR #3 seems not to require that its coverage or fame be lasting, unless there is some precedent or practice that I am unaware of.  As for the "major role" part, I think it's hard to see how the director is not a major role, which is backed up by his also being nominated for a Lux Award [6] .  I am honestly surprised by how strongly I'm defending this show and its director, but I think there's enough evidence for doing so.  Toadspike ( talk ) 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The reviews provided by Toadspike appear to be the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews that WP:DIRECTOR #3 demands.  Pilaz ( talk ) 14:23, 29 September 2023 (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