Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat (2nd nomination)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat

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

Literally just deleted in an AfD, but an IP keeps removing the G4 template, so I'm pretty much forced to open this. The article is still not showing any signs of notability, and nothing has changed since the last AfD. It's a little less of an attack page, but it is still very dubious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article is significantly larger than the deleted version (which was only one paragraph) so G4 wouldn't apply in this case, given the lack of participation (nominator +1 including a relist) in the previous AfD, this should probably run its course. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The IP now keeps removing the AfD template, but no admin has dealt with the AIV report yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has now. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat is a well-known religious org in Pakistan. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide policy-based reasons for your vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well versed with the policies yet but i know it's notable, it's always mentioned in the news, if you need sources, i can definitely find some for you, nonetheless, i will review the policy you mentioned and provide a policy based reason as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please provide reliable sources that would indicate this group passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like there's no tomorrow. We don't have any reliable sources here to establish notability, seems like a no brainer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A10). I am so unfamiliar with this topic. However, outside of the lead, this article is essentially a cut-paste of Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwwat (or the other way around). Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat was initially created in 2006, and Tehreek was created in 2010 (but has been expanded and sourced, albeit very poorly). Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat should be speedy deleted in accordance with the A10 criteria, without leaving a redirect (since Tehreek doesn't mention Pasban). An alternate choice would be to merge the lead of Pasban to Tehreek, then salt Pasban and redirect... but we don't have the sources to support even the two sentence lead. Other than that, hoping someone a bit more familiar with the subject can take a look at Tehreek. Cindy(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2014 (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.