Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Cemendtaur

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Terribly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources and even with that notability is on the boarder and for me falls on the not notable side. - Pmedema (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2017 (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.

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. The sources found do need to be added to the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaqub Mirza

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

No coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in news refs like WSJ [1] and the following: [2] [3]. Some WSJ articles are subscription-only, so cannot be viewed in general search results unless Googled separately. Mar4d (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2017 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wajd

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

Dubious notability with little coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 08:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 08:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2017 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafeeq Gigyani (activist)

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

merely namechecking in the RS doesn't makes one notable enough to warrant a WP entry. none of the source discuss the subject in detail except noting him as an activist. some cited sources are not RS. Saqib (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2017 (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.

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 no consensus arguments on both side are week and don't explain what the mean by their comments. If someone thinks this should be deleted still, consider sending it to AfD again in a month or so TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema

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

Information about this person should be in the article of the actual controversy of Jyllands-Posten cartoons. I have added the information to the timeline of that article, so this page is now redundant. Elektricity (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 06:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect (no, at least at this moment in time, it is not in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). Also possible to rename article to Die-Welt 2006 attack or something similar. The incident is notable (though mergeable), the WP:PERP is known only in connection to this crime - carrying it out and dying in custody.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Modified below.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the timeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#20_March Elektricity (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OP also removed information from the article prior to nomming. Specifically, the funeral of the subject, attended by over 30,000 people, meets event notability and confers notability on the subject in addition to the actual Die Welt attack. Coverage is definitely persistent and significant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:PERSISTENCE WP:SIGCOV and WP:GOLDENRULE. This article merits a space on the encylopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 08:34, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as this meets WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of this rises above general news coverage. This might be worth a general comment in an article on crazed attacks against freedom of expression, but it does not merit a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE as per continued coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect to Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#20_March per WP:BLP1E. The attendance at the funeral does not amount to encyclopedia notability. In any case, this topic is already sufficiently covered in the target article, and stand-alone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Fails GNG. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arif Balgamwala

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

Not much in WP:RS or Google Books. Can't be solely notable based on 4th in level award e.g. Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. We can't write much without WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable stamp collector.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2017 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xerxes Byram Avari

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

Can't be notable being participant in Asian games. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No coverage in WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Non notable as either a businessperson or an athlete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2017 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menin Rodrigues

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

Non-notable person's bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable member and historian from Pakistan's Goan community. Several sources can be found on news. Mar4d (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking what I searched before nominating. We don't have enough coverage to write without WP:OR per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly written and in my opinion falls short of primary notability recquirements for inclusion into the encylopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 08:56, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The article reads like a glorified CV or a fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you have to push for notability for what someone does "in his spare time" they probably are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2017 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar Sultan

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

There is more coverage for Shan Foods than its founder. Notability is not inherited. All written here is per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Shan Foods. Störm (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to this source, he is "considered the guru of Pakistan's packaged food industry". He appears to be notable as CEO of a large brand [4] [5] [6] Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they all are name-check mentions. Ideally this should be redirected. Störm (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naturally people tend to mention products more often than the founder's name and the entrepreneur who made those products possible. He had enough news coverage in 2 major newspapers of Pakistan and one major newspaper in India as his developed products are sold in both countries and in the international markets. He has won awards for his vision and leadership and I have cited references for all of this in the article that I edited on 15 October 2017. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chicken and egg debate? What came first, Sikandar Sultan or products developed by him? His notability in Pakistan is certainly not inherited. Recognising this, Karachi Chamber of Commerce & Industry awarded him Best Export Performance Award in 2009. References are already provided in the article. It's a Wiki stub article. With more references shown above by User:Mar4d and others, the article can be expanded in the future. Ngrewal1 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ngrewal. NotInherited is NotPolicy, also. I will remove a lot of promo-y sounding text. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (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.

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 redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Sweden

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

There is little coverage with not much details to write stand alone article without WP:OR. Article is mostly sourced with dubious sources. Fails general notability criteria WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. Störm (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overseas Pakistanis. Fails WP:GNG and there's little hope of improvement. Sjö (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Swedish Indians and rename the article South Asians in Sweden or similar. There are notable Pakistanis in Sweden and the article Swedish Indians is presumably notable enough for inclusion itself. Nuke (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overseas Pakistanis, per Sjö's comment. Bruzer Fox 09:17, 30 October 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Mir

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

The subject has been in the news for some time lately but as of now, he fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 09:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Suhrwardy

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep not enough sources and not enough work to his credit but pass basic WP:GNG. Have IMDb profile and some coverage in few RS. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough notable to be on Wikipedia. Hadn't done any significant roles in multiple films. No unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. No large fan base or a significant "cult" following. My review says it still fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it fails WP:NACTOR, but meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IMDb is not WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Second option is that we redirect it to Mangoes (TV series). Greenbörg (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. --Saqib (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the specific criteria for actors and filmmakers. These are meant to weed out people who get low level coverage that is not actually substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that he is notable enough from the sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2017 (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.

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. While there seems to be a lot of sources, it's near impossible to verify if they actually discuss the subject, in what depth, and if the citations match up to the content they're paired with. ansh 666 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Bashir

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Almost sourced by self-crafted sources. Fails to verify per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG. Created by SPA User:Maria Jackson. Greenbörg (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are cited but are they only passing references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of cited sources are offline therefore it is very difficult to cross check. I have tried to find on the subject in online RS but to no avail so unless someone provide here online RS, delete vote from me. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGF. If we take the cited references at face value then the subject appears to be notable. Just because references are not via google or in Urdu and not in English is not grounds for deletion. I think this one really needs some input from someone who is fluent in Urdu etc. Aoziwe (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe:Article is not properly sourced. If they know then they must add which page of the newspaper discuss the subject. We can't just keep any article when we can't verify per WP:V. Störm (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly promotional ("His services to humanity are formally recognised by a number of notables"), which leads me to not assume good faith in the sources, which I can't check. Sandstein 16:26, 10 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Coutinho and Company

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. South Nashua (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Durrani

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. Her "official" site and the one for her show are both parked at this time, so I have removed them. PK T(alk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Was recruited here via Reddit at this link]. --KalamazooGuy (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — KalamazooGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above-noted user 'KalamazooGuy' has been blocked for disruptive editing. PK T(alk) 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't have sufficient coverage reliable sources to warrant an article and, searches returned only the sources already presenr of which some are not working entirely while some are mere websites. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, and this is a role account from wigan.gov.uk --Synnior22 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Synnior22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

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 soft delete. There is a WP:RS, and we do need to bear in mind WP:CSB. But there is one source, and after three weeks nobody has, it seemed, turned up anything else. Unfortunatly, as this is a BLP, we need to do better. If additional reliable sources can be found, this can be WP:REFUNDed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedar Mnagrio

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWRITER and fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator managed to miss this, as it was already cited in the article before nomination, but the subject has an entry in the Encyclopedia Sindhiana published by the Sindhi Language Authority. Or do non-Western sources not count for some reason? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of your anti-West comments. Surely, I seen that but there is nothing for him other than that. We can't have article what SLA's Sindhiana has. We generally delete or redirect single sourced article. Störm (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing anti-West about my comment, but rather pro treating reliable sources on an equal basis wherever they originate from. You said that this had no coverage in WP:RS, which is blatantly untrue, unless you treat Sindhi sources as unreliable by definition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper lack of soruces. Fails WP:BASIC my searches using the Latin alphabet turns up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2017 (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.

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 merge to University of Sindh. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of STAGS

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

We generally don't have articles on such societies. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Sindh. It seems to be a relatively important organization at the university, but I don't see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Shaikh

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

No in-depth coverage in multiple sources per WP:RS. The subject is not notable per WP:NWRITER and fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google search didn't turn up anything for this individual, and the one reference provided is a dead link. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of sources. My searches aren't finding him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kallam-e-Grohirri

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

Not notable per WP:NBOOK. Just a simple book about someone with no review. Greenbörg (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreferenced article about a book for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 20:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha

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

cited sources are not RS. fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST Saqib (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is sufficient sources to keep this on Wikipedia. Please check.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abu Aleeha is also a film director and producer, directing Arifa, working with notable actors of Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also UrduPoint source, which is largest and most viewed Urdu website.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OKAT but the source does not talk in detail about the subject. It is not enough to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib Please let me know, if source like urdupoint talk in detail about subject, than will you remove delete suggestion template? --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot solely rely on a single source. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, There are hundreds of search result in English other than facebook, twitter and wikipedia. There are also thousands of search result in Urdu. Sujbect has hundreds of thousand fan following on social media. There is a RS, according to you that is not much talked about sujebct. I think this shoould be enough to Keep the page. However, if you want further RS, please give me some time to further improve the page with RSs. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of search result in English other than facebook, twitter and wikipedia. There are also thousands of search result in Urdu. Sujbect has hundreds of thousand fan following on social media.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need RS, not any source. The sources in the G' search results are not RS. We do not care how much fans or followers the subject has on social media. WP:NOFRIENDS. --Saqib (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will upadte the page with RS very soon. Please don't delete in hurry.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take just couple of days to update page with RSs.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Abu Aleeha is a senior film-maker and director. MShamsudDin (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC) — MShamsudDin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user is blocked for socking.--Saqib (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 Rss (UrduPoint and DawnNews) in page, I think this is enough to give me some time to add more. Thanks for your patience.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn source verifies only one film in the subject's name which is not enough to pass WP:FILMMAKER. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for reflection on whether new sources added are RS or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Greenbörg. The sockpuppetry confirms, at least to me, this is a self-promotional ad. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltan threat

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

Non notable subject. Reliable sources don't mention such thing as a "Chilean threat" as confirmed through a WP:BEFORE search. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am assuming this article is referring to environmental threats to Koh-i-Chiltan. The fact that articles currently lack sources, or may not be written in perfect English, is not a valid reason for deletion. We can use our brains and not just Google to look beyond the search term "Chiltan threat" --Animalparty! (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the content was sourced, this would obviously be a Merge to Koh-i-Chiltan. It might be best deleted, as it's a new article with no sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7, completely unsourced and unverifiable. A merge would be inappropriate given that it fails WP:V, our most core content policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ilyas Kamboh

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Greenbörg (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pai khel tribe

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepA 19th century RS lists two Pai khel tribes. One of them might be the one which is the subject of the article.An early 20th century RS covers a Pai khel tribe. If a tribe is verified by reliable sources it seems like an appropriate subject, just like we keep articles about verified hamlets. Edison (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such Raj-era publications are far from reliable sources on this topic, being based on a mixture of scientific racism and divide and rule. This is explained further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. If reliable sources are found we are more confident than "might be" that they are discussing the same subject (see above), then the article can be recreated, but what we have at the moment looks like original research and a quick search for sources doesn't reveal much that would be of use in rewriting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think tribes are like GeoLand, and are encyclopedia-worthy due to thei existence. Like any other species, e.g (no I'm not a racist or an evolutionist) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, parrot, nor a tabloid, and ethnic listings are notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Primary" tribes are inherently notable, but here we already have an article on the ethnic group: Pathans, and one on the specific tribe that the Pai Khel are a branch of: the Niazi. I don't think we can reasonably aim to have a separate article on each of the hundreds of sub-subtribes of a given ethnic group. – Uanfala 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe. I haven't actually done any research so I'll stay neutral on the WP:N question. I do however see that Paikhel talks a little about the tribe, so if it's not kept, at least redirect to Paikhel. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I look into this more, I see we've got many similar/related articles, such as Hassanikhel, Adamkhel, and Sulaimankhel. Is there some WP:SNG which gives advice on how to establish notability for tribes? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khel is apparently a generic Pashto term for a tribe subdivision, see Khel (clan). I don't know how the notability of these is generally handled, but I don't expect there to be any specific guidelines. There were quite a few AfDs about Jat clans last year, and I don't think any were judged on anything but WP:GNG. – Uanfala 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait:--Shortly commenting.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they exist, they may be notable. But, the current sources do not appear verifiable. Ifnord (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They apparently are mentioned in sources, see the first !vote in this discussion. – Uanfala 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And see the response to that first vote. Sources from British Raj ethnographers are not, for very good reasons, accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. Being mentioned in unreliable sources doesn't contribute to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss some of the points brought up by participants since the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (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.