Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahiwal Division
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sahiwal Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale "Pakistani divisions were abolished in 2000. The only source given for this division is a blog". I am not sure if that rationale is correct, but I thought this merits some research and discussion, so I brought it up here. For now, I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. I will also bring this up at WP:Pakistan. — Sebastian 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The division was created in November last year. Also see the Election Commission of Pakistan's Website (then part of Multan Division) and the Population Welfare Division Website. Rather confusingly Divisions were abolished during the Musharraf Presidency, but have been reformed, though with a different structure. Pahari Sahib 08:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the headers to this AfD, which were missing. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's treat this nomination in the same way as we would treat a deletion nomination for a county in the United States, i.e. speedy keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2009 (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.