This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hi, thank you for this. I'm on mobile now which makes it hard to follow up now but will get round to it when I can. I will note that the problem with geo Urdu was the source itself, as it states that it doesn't accept editorial responsibility for content posted on it, and editorial oversight is often taken as a necessary feature of a reliable source. Landscape repton (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. I've had a better chance to look at this.
Ref 1 and 10 I haven't touched. It's useful to be able to include the archive link but I'm not sure if there was a wider point you were trying to make in relation to those?
The Daily Jang reference got cut as part of the clean-up with particular regard for self-promotion. It's only use was to source a 'prize' he received, but the 'prize' was awarded by the publisher of the book. That's self-promotion, and since the prize is of no profile or prominence it's also assigning undue weight to it.
In general, I think Daily Jang is one of the better and more useful sources we have for this author, and so if the source can be reincorporated to support of other aspects of this article or the other, I'm all for it.
Ref 12 I addressed in the previous comment.
I will also say that I think the most pressing issue here is whether this page really needs to exist as distinct from the author page (whatever happens with that). By my reckoning, it fairly clearly fails the notability requirements for a book, being without an ISBN, and not available in "a dozen or more" library collections, and apparently not in the national collection of its country of origin (whether that's taken to be The Netherlands, or Britain, or Pakistan). Landscape repton (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)