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, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Punjab

Pakistan

Atta ur Rehman Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

The situation appears to be unchanged from the last AFD: this academic is listed online (in primary sources such as his own books or copies of his conference papers) but has not received coverage within reliable and independent publications. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can’t believe this didn’t come to my attention sooner!! It's quite a shameful AUTOBIO. It was created by an Oman-based IP back in 2019 when the subject was a professor at Sohar University, Oman per his LinkedIn profile. Then it was mostly written by Ajman, UAE-based IPs such as 2001:8F8:1E23:7A12:1C9D:4C83:84C1:AA8A, 5.193.101.156, 109.177.94.190, 109.177.82.11, 109.177.87.49, 109.177.104.239 who are also likely associated with the subject, especially since the subject moved to Ajman as a professor at Ajman University in 2020. If one checks the logs, it’s evident that this BLP has been heavily edited from both Oman and Ajman - both places where the subject has lived. It clearly fails to meet GNG as well as WP:NPROF. it's totally promotional and the subject is clearly using Wikipedia for self-promotion. He also flaunts his Wikipedia page on his personal website [see footer]. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it stated in the Wikipedia policy that a notable person cannot mention a Wikipedia page link on their websites? 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he also meet GNG. He established Pakistan's National Cybersecurity Center and Pakistan's first undergraduate cybersecurity program. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where is the secondary coverage? There are lots of secondary coverage about Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani. Seriously, all this talk is being documented, and will make incredibly harder to get your page back. Now you will have to appear in the BBC, CNBC and Al Jazeera to be considered again for a Wiki page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn! Contributor892z (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I compared Prof. Khan's profile with the following Pakistani computer scientists. If the following are meeting the GNG and WP:NPROF then Prof. Khan's page is also meeting the required criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani#cite_note-tribune-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Majid_Bhurgri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhawani_Shankar_Chowdhry

I believe the editor has some personal grudges and is biased against this listing. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
personal grudges Seriously Mr. Khan, it’s not worth it. let’s chill! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who khan? I think you have something personal with Khans. I can understand. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been enough years since the previous AfD that the previous WP:TOOSOON arguments do not really apply. But the only case to be made for notability appears to be through WP:PROF#C1; he doesn't meet the other PROF criteria and we have no evidence of GNG notability. Setting aside the quality of his publications, this is a high-citation field and the top-cited works on his Google Scholar profile [1] all appear to be surveys. I don't think the remaining ones have sufficient demonstrated impact to pass C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you from the same domain? How can you pass a judgement if the number of citations are not enough? Prof. Khan is listed among the world's top 2% scientists in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 WP:PROF#C1. He also serves on the editorial boards of more than eight high impact journals WP:PROF#d. He has delivered multiple keynote talks at international IEEE conferences WP:PROF#e. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is really notable, then why no secondary coverage? The WP:PROF#C1 criterion is indeed subjective and is just a shortcut to presume that there is notability under WP:GNG. Best way to prove notability beyond doubt is to have evidence of WP:SIGCOV, which the subject fails to have. To be highly cited under WP:PROF#C1, in my experience I have seen that 3000 citations across the entire career in computer science is still not enough without secondary coverage. Probably still needs to triple that amount, with at least a couple papers with more than 1500 citations. I agree that it would be better include quantifiable information in WP:PROF#C1 and make it less subjective, but I doubt this will ever happen. Contributor892z (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree that he does not meet WP:PROF and there is also no secondary coverage to show evidence of WP:GNG. The article was also poorly written and does not meet WP:NPOV by any means. Seems to be just a case of using Wikipedia for self promotion. Contributor892z (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Khan's work has been cited by thousands of independent researchers in their publications.

For ref, check https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=j5x2DasAAAAJ and https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55602487700. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not secondary coverage. Read WP:SIGCOV Contributor892z (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how Wikipedia is used for self promotion in this case. Prof. Khan's personal website ranks first on Google search for his name. This page is not even in the first five google search results. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention is to only get a Google knowledge panel, don’t use Wikipedia then. Get a profile with Google Books and that will do it :-) Contributor892z (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of India as a political entity

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

Seems a synthetic topic, potentially doubling as a content fork. None of the cited sources are comparative as the article purports itself to be, and do not otherwise indicate the material as something other than an original synthesis. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thr article is basically about an contrast to how people view Historical India as a region.

It points out political entities in the Indian subcontinent which called themselves India in any language or form.

Like Mughals, Mauryas,Etc.

Could you tell me which sources are wrong as you are saying, i will surely sort them out and correct the JingJongPascal (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create an article juxtaposing whichever elements according to whatever criteria you want if sources do not themselves do that: that is original synthesis, a form of original research. If there are reliable sources that themselves compare and contrast these polities according to your criteria then you have to present and cite them, otherwise you are using sources that are focused on each individual polity to draw conclusions and observations that none of them individually make themselves.. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are wrong?

Each source is representing what they were called natively.

If your problem is with my articles title of India as a political entity and if you think this does not draw conclusions then maybe we can discuss for alternative name of the article? JingJongPascal (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy I linked multiple times. Again, the problem regards the subject of the article itself, which seems to be entirely synthetic on your part. You can't make an article juxtaposing whatever information you want, even if each individual piece of information is sourced. I would not be allowed to publish History of political entities whose names begin with J because that is not itself a subject established or attested in sources, even if Japan, Jin, and Jalalabad are individually. By putting them together in an article, you are making connections that are not substantiated: that is original synthesis. Remsense ‥ 论 03:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will support a deletion here since problem with this article is that its just baseless, India's history as a region is already covered in History of India and as a nation state in History of Republic of India.This article is just unnecessary and useless.Also, per @Remsense's arguments.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Remsense said there's no sources discussing this topic in a way that would differentiate it from the similar one found in India#History. Country articles contain a history section that goes back further than whatever their current political system is. France#History starts way before 1958, for example. All of the major groups and events that would be in this article would no doubt have a place in India#History - and so far as I can tell they already do. Wizmut (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will stress the fundamental criteria seem particularly arbitrary: why not just "large states in historical India", if not because this particular collection is meant to illustrate a more specific conception of the history? Sources would need to exist that support and analyze such a conception. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not here trying to lay down or advocate for certain historical views. We are supposed to reflect what others have written. Unless there are sources which substantially cover this topic as framed here, the page trying to do something outside of the remit of an encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. over generalized title as well UzbukUdash (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i understand all arguments ,so can we maybe work on alternative name of the article? Or maybe merging it with another article? JingJongPascal (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could change the article's name to "Historical usage of India" or "Historical usage of India as a political entity"?

That woud fit better JingJongPascal (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand, as per above the issue is not with the article title, but with what the article is actually about. Its content remains exactly the same, juxtaposing subtopics to reflect an emphasis that you have seemingly invented yourself. Why would a different article title solve this problem, as I described above? Remsense ‥ 论 00:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and the discussion above from other voters. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Ali Zaidi

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

This bio clearly fails GNG, but instead of taking it to AFD, I draftified it to give the creator a chance to get it approved through AFC review. However, they reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. Those arguing to keep it based on WP:ANYBIO #1 should also understand that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. It lacks direct and in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Cited sources quote text like "His Namaze Janaza will be offered today (Wednesday) at 14:30 hrs at Imambargah Jamia Sadiq at G-9/2 (Near Karachi Company) Islamabad. He will be buried in Karachi," which suggests that this is a paid obituary. WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated, and the awards he received are military-specific and are awarded based on the person's rank rather than their accomplishments. Only civilian awards are prestigious, so this bio fails WP:ANYBIO as well. President is different from vice chancellor so fails WP:NACADEMIC as well. 202.59.12.208 (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 202.59.12.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Better to login to your account (not a new user who immediately finds AfD)/ no contributions outside this AfD) than presenting your biased opinions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears, While I personally don’t appreciate votes by IPs in AFDs, even when they share the same opinion as mine, but this vote do raise valid concerns that you need to counter if you want to keep this BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: BLP? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears, My mistake—I meant to say "bio". — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I make unintentional mistakes too. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP is referring to President (corporate title) which is completely different from Chancellor (education) – President (education). The subject in question served as the chancellor i.e President (education). If you don't know the differences, please don't waste time of other AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, I get that university presidents are usually seen as notable, but this guy's background as a soldier rather than an academic makes it a bit questionable. No? Just because he was president of a military university doesn’t mean he’s made any significant academic contributions. PS. I am glad you took the IP to task! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I fear that the sources and article may not have been fully reviewed. The subject also held a notable role at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, which I feel adds to his notability. From what I understand, my challenge to the draftification may have been taken personally, which could be why it went to AfD without a neutral or closer review. I'm not against taking this article to AfD; my concern is about questionable review. It TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It seems that when you nominate an article for AfD, there is often strong advocacy against retention, which may come across as challenging the "keep" votes, and influencing other editors, potentially harming WP:CON. (see this, this, this, this, this, and this.........) I'm a bit concerned that this approach might be affecting the neutrality of discussions. The best practice is to review the article and the provided sources very closely, then describe the issue at the time of AfD nomination and let the community decide the fate of AfDed articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  TheBirdsShedTears, I think the AGF factor is missing here and I believe this discussion is going off track. Instead of focusing on the subject, you're discussing me and my behavior in this AFD, which isn't the right forum for that. But since you asked, let me clarify: when someone makes a WP:ATA or when someone with a questionable editing history - yes, I said questionable editing history - !votes to change the outcome of an AFD, I feel it’s necessary to counter them. That’s not a bad thing, is it? That said, if you believe this AFD is unjustified, you still have time to explain why it should be kept. If it's based on GNG, please provide links to coverage that establish WP:N. If it falls under some SNG, please clarify that. I hope it’s not NACADEMIC, as I’ve raised concerns about that. And being the Head of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad doesn’t inherently make someone WP:N either; they still need to meet some criteria. You must know better, don’t you? PS. this might be my last comment on this AFD to allow you and others to decide its fate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Ali Syed

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

Fails WP:GNG and cannot be considered for WP: CREATIVE for Journalists. It seems all the articles published for the subject were put together as sources on his Wikipedia page. The sources focused on different walks of life rather than the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mentioned in the article are not related to the subject of the article. The sources mentioned are mostly the news articles written by the subject himself. These sources do not establish notability. TNM101 (chat) 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This BLP is based on self-published sources and clearly fails GNG. Fwiw, the creator Wikiwookie543 (talk · contribs) has created several BLPs that strongly suggest they are engaging in UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. Fails WP:GNG. 103.82.120.88 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Balobanian

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

No refs on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing RS that show WP:V or notability, but I don't speak the relevant languages. A redirect to Sarai Alamgir might be suitable if the details can be verified, although this place is not mentioned at the target as far as I can tell. JMWt (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. JMWt (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fwiw this page was nom for a speedy more than a decade ago. The nom was removed without improvement and no refs have ever been added. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarai Alamgir#Villages. I have moved one line of this page there.--Gul Butt (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Shaikh

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

This BLP was created by Fadushake (talk · contribs) - the subject themselves, as shown in the edit summary. I did a quick G'search and found nothing substantial to establish GNG, so I’m nom it for deletion. The subject has had roles in a few TV series, but that doesn’t guarantee their standalone BLP on Wikipedia. Anyone arguing that they meet NACTOR should keep this in mind when voting. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions. And that is verifiable through various sources on the page (even if some sources are not great) or via the articles about the productions when they exist (note that the absence of a page for any given production is not necessarily the sign of non-notability (nor of notability, clearly)) Also note that various sources and lead section used Sheikh (not Shaikh) for his name (example: https://theazb.com/fahad-sheikh-to-star-in-pakistans-first-ever-digital-feature-film/ https://www.mangobaaz.com/23-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-actor-fahad-sheikh/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, It seems your vote was based on WP:OR, which I have removed. You need to provide evidence of their lead roles, as I don’t see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Really? :D.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?--Gul Butt (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) — Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We can cleanup page or put COI tag, reason everyone knows. Gul Butt (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gul Butt, Your vote resembles WP:ATA. You should explain how they meet NACTOR. I've removed the WP:OR, which claims the subject has had lead roles. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATA is an extremely long essay and should not be opposed to a !vote without further precision. Most of all, Gul Butt very very very very explicitly explained how and why the guideline is met in their opinion. As for your removal of material from the page during an AfD, I would suggest you refrain from doing so and rather add a tag to the content you deem unsourced. Thank you. Aside: do you honestly doubt that his roles are lead roles??? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, You all are voting to keep this BLP based on WP:OR and I don't need your permission to remove WP:OR from a BLP, even if the BLP is at AFD. You should provide evidence of how the actor meets NACTOR instead of relying on WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’You all?’ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not satisfied with presented sources (they are churnalism, in my view), and my reasonable before finds nothing which meets RS. Any argument on what Wikipedia says about a subject is ridiculous, since we're not allowed to cite the pedia here. The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Given this is a BLP and a self-promotional autobiography to boot, I can't keep. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made any argument on what Wikipedia says about [the] subject (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "ridiculous" argument based on cit[ing] the pedia you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the existence of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest starting point to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is refuting my central argument: The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have none which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (I'm being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, Labeling my comments as ad hominem just because you have no counterarguments is, ironically, a form of ad hominem itself. If I had said that you’re losing your credibility with those kinds of keep votes in the AFDs, that would be an ad hominem remark. imv. Let's focus on the actual discussion! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this extremely inappropriate ad hominem remark. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking User:Mushy Yank to ANI about this issue. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also inviting the user to remove material added to their comment, after my reply; per Wikipedia:REDACTED and to move them below or where they wish. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group [2]. 103.82.120.217 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, clearly. He played lead roles in Azmaish[3], Jalan (TV series)[4] and perhaps others, and important secondary roles in many other series. Lots of coverage in English-language sources, probably more in non-English sources. Fram (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, I'm sorry, but I still can't verify from the provided sources that Fahad had lead roles. Just doing a few roles on some TV shows doesn’t necessarily mean he played a lead role. And let’s assume that someone played lead roles in a few TV series. Does this mean they are inherently considered WP:N and don’t need to meet the NBASIC? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  GNG is even less of an issue, consideribg the many nexs sources specifically about him. But the dispute was that people couldn´t vrtify that he played lead roles despite e.g. this stating this explicitly, and it being implicit in many other sources. Have any of the "delete" voters even attempted to do a WP:BEFORE search or is it simply more fun to be aggressive against the keeps? Fram (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NACTOR clearly states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and as admin clarified, WP:NACTOR says significant roles, not major, as one of the two paths to entertainer notability. [5], A supporting role can be significant. A single scene or a single line can be significant depending on context [6], The policy does not say lead [7]. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Fram, Yes, there are reliable native language sources discussing him which includes Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don’t want to come across as a BLUDGEON, so this may be my final comment on this AFD. I’d like to highlight that the section on entertainers clearly states, Such a person may be considered notable if using the term may be considered. That said, even if someone has played a few roles in TV series, I'm not convinced they deserve a BLP unless they have significant roles in multiple notable TV series, which isn't the case here, imv because many of the series in which this actor has appeared don't even easily meet WP:N, despite articles being created about them. Similarly, meeting a subject-specific guideline means the topic is presumed to be notable, not that the individual is necessarily notable. So while there may be some press coverage on the subject, it appears to be paid PR churnalism and not something that can pass GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a very strong reason for why the subject should be evaluated under GNG instead of WP:NBASIC and WP:NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeraxmoira, I never said this should be evaluated under GNG instead of NACTOR, what I mean is that I'm not convinced it meets NACTOR for the reasons I mentioned above. Apologize if my comment above gave that impression. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage from Jalan (TV series) and the mentions of Jalan in subsequent articles about him indicate that it’s a significant role/work. Combined with his subsequent roles post-Jalan, is enough for NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've done some research and found that it was created by SPA Fadushake (talk · contribs) but at that time this BLP pertained to film-maker of same name and existed till 2019, then in July 2020, an unknown IP hijacked this article & replaced information of film-maker with actor of same name. Now if we are seeing hijacking then article should be reverted to film-maker. I am unsure whether this hijacking will reverted or AFD will continue. If we are here about actor then he is meeting notability criteria with three major roles i.e, Jalan (verified by 24 News), Azmaish (verified by The Express Tribune) and Naam Kya Rakha (verified by Daily Times). Also country's major publications discussing him with three mentioned above and some others are Daily Times, Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News, DAWN. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Mushy Yank and Fram that the subject passes both NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Bashir Tarar

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

@Crosji: flagged this BLP and questioned its WP:N. I suggested they take it to AFD, but since they haven't, I'm stepping in to nom it for deletion because I don’t see it meeting GNG, even at the borderline. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 2 sources looks normal news coverage about transfer and posting of different departments.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing of note done by him during his tenure and as of now just doing his job. No body cares. 202.59.12.57 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP - Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By all appearances, he seems to be some kind of career civil servant who has been promoted to border control director. He’s a “20” rank in the civil service, which is two levels below the highest grade of Pakistani law enforcement officers. That’s nice, but that’s not a claim to notability. If he did something (stopped an incursion) or was awarded a major award, then he might be notable. If you find anything more, please let me know. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Reza Reza

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

I draftified this article because I felt it didn't meet the GNG. However, the creator EternalSun1 (talk · contribs) moved it back to the main NS to avoid an AFC review, leaving me no choice but to take it to AfD. I believe it fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Romance: a standard ATD when coverage about production for verification exists and the series has a notable cast; not opposed to Keep for that matter, if other users judge it is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Romance: I don't think that this TV series is any special from all other series produced by Hum TV. Storyline/Cast is also not notable in my opinion. Only 6-7 episodes have been aired till now. Notability can be decided when the series finishes. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are many television shows that have similar storylines and aren't "special" from other series, which are still on Wikipedia. This isn't a fair reasoning for deletion since people who do like this series, and want to get information about it, won't have a space where they can check all of the details. Sabreen Hisbani is the notable actress in the show, she is one of Pakistan's biggest actresses working on shows like "Laa", "Parchayee", "Aunn Zara", "Mohabbat Tumse Nafrat Hai" which have all been very succesful. Either way, cast notability shouldn't matter if the show is coming from a large Pakistani network, with proper articles, details etc. If there are any details to be added, please contribute to the article. Add sources aswell. The show itself was announced less than a month ago (teasers, name, full cast was announced on October 7, 2024) so more articles should be rolling out soon. I have also added an IMDb for the show in external links and the official Hum TV website, which states alot of the details. Thank you for the contribution EternalSun1 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain : I suggest to retain the article as it is passing the references and mentions and it is fully composed with the WP:MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.119.195 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 182.183.119.195, passing the references and mentions How? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARCO Coastal Refinery

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

Another proposed dead project which never really took off. Three sources are from the same newspaper. I think it would have been noticeable if it was under construction or complete. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comment. It's a dead project that hasn't worked out after all these years.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.
Draftify or merge to the parent, Pak-Arab Refinery. It is definitely a notable topic with a lot of media coverage but as of now the project is still a proposed project. I personally think we should keep it in draftspace and once the construction starts we can move it back to mainspace. 2A01:E0A:274:4420:E553:3AB4:B5BC:EBCA (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karak Oil Refinery

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

Construction never really started. Based on couple of news reports. Looks like a case of TOOSOON. Article is also GNG tagged. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge to the parent, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil & Gas Company per WP:ATD. It is definitely a notable topic with a lot of media coverage but as of now the project is still a proposed project. I personally think we should keep it in draftspace and once the construction starts we can move it back to mainspace. 2A01:E0A:274:4420:E553:3AB4:B5BC:EBCA (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Urdu 1

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

Tagged for notability in hopes of improvement but tag removed. A WP:BEFORE does not find significant coverage discussing the list as a whole so fails WP:NLIST. Would recommend merging the content to Urdu 1 but not finding significant coverage for the channel either. Looking at some of the programs listed, I believe a lot will fail notability as well. Searching for ("amanat" + "Urdu 1") finds nothing on Gnews, and only sources such as YouTube and social media in regular Google. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Might need cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you are again citing MOS and not a GUIDELINE. We could create many lists on many topics if we simply use MOS. Can you point out the sources that discuss the list as a group which is a requirement of WP:NLIST?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Again"? I am going to try in capital letters, myself, maybe then :D. "AGAIN"? WP:NLIST IS A GUIDELINE. IT IS A GUIDELINE. A. GUIDELINE. A. NOTABILITY. GUIDELINE. And please JUST. READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. (all the words). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked here, which is a Manual of Style guideline. It is NOT a notability guideline. You cite this and WP:SPLITLIST in other AfDs as if they somehow superseded notability guidelines. You missed the part in NLIST (or selectively decided to ignore) where it says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I will ask as I have in other AfDs...can you show the significant coverage where the list is discussed in a grouping? As far as your tone, I would ask that you act a little more WP:CIVIL as its not acceptable conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

d-just re-read my !vote "again" and my comment below if you're interested. "i" did not "link" anything that the guideline does not include: the link is included in the original text of the guideline, which is what I quoted: the guideline, which is a guideline (and not not-a-guideline) itself quotes mos to define what the criterion for this particular case is; check the original. other cases exist, other possibilities, other !votes, other parts of other texts, other afds but my present !vote is based on that particular part and i did not quote splitlist here, did I? "still" is the key-word in the sentence that just follows the one from the guideline that i quote. implying that someone has "selectively decided to ignore" something is not exactly a great example of assuming good faith. mentioning that someone does something "again" at afd is also not completely necessary, especially as similar cases imply similar arguments. referring to arguments or outcomes in/of other afds can be helpful to help discussion progress if similar cases offered interesting elements, not to more or less explicitly cast a cloud on contributors with general but vague ad hominem remarks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Urdu 1: I think there is not need for a separate programming page when the contents can be easily merged back into channel page. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the suggestion to merge seems to make sense, if other users think size and navigation are not an issue, the page about the network being indeed short. But I think the organisation in similar categories (List(s) of programs broadcast by XXX) is very helpful and clear for the reader. For example List of programs broadcast by Hum TV was AfDed and redirected/merged back...and now it does not appear anymore under the category, so that the reader has been deprived of a simple and powerful tool that helps navigate clearly between networks, in my humble opinion. So unless we can leave the category on the page, a merge seems detrimental to navigation (Hence my !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep lists without proper sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urdu 1: Fails WP:NLIST and this is an unneeded CFORK. Much of the content in fact violates NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the redirect target? I know the sources on the page are poor but only did a brief WP:BEFORE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I agree the sourcing on the target Urdu 1 is poor, but whether it meets WP:N is a separate issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FI, coverage on the subject of the list as set includes various paragraphs on the very programming of the network in: Sulehria, F. (2018). Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan. Taylor & Francis.; Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, p. 207 (on the prominence of Turkish series in the programming of U1). Adding them to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost all entries have their separate Wikipedia pages.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do know we require sourcing for all articles, right? Just because it has an article doesn't make it notable here without proper sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were told about WP:ATA a little over a week ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

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

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether an organisation has officially commenced operations or not is not relevant to notability. The fact that it is a government agency with a legal basis means it is highly likely to commence operations, anyway. We need to know whether the authority has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well a point I forgot to mention is that usually as per my knowledge after cabinet approval the act has to pass through parliament to come into force. Cabinet approval means that the Federal Cabinet has no issue with the act. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a proposed entity that has received some coverage in 2023, but I don’t believe it meets NORG since there isn’t any sustained coverage. Imv, it falls under WP:TOOSOON. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an only proposed government entity, it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would be an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as an ATD. I agree with the TOOSOON concerns and there's been no coverage of this agency since the announcement that I can see. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors be satisfied with draftification at this point since this just might be TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Yes, draftification would be a good idea for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Motor Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP: there is no direct and in-depth article about the company. The coverage is mostly Adam Revo so a redirect per WP:ATD is possible. Gheus (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I managed to find this [8], but it is WP ROUTINE, occasional not sigcov. Nothing more while doing WP BEFORE. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adam Revo: Better merge this into Adam Revo, as the company itself clearly fails to meet the NCORP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or merge whatever else content on this page to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Per below and WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, there has already been a concenus on this article that it should remain Waleed (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M Waleed Firstly, there was sockpuppets involved in the original AFD, go back to it to see blocked accounts. Secondly, I never brought up WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted! Austria Football 02 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted!" is directly against AFD policy, just because you think in your eyes it is a good article does not mean it is worthy of being kept. It is directly against Wikipedia Policy per Redundantfork. See WP:AADD, and more specifically; WP:ILIKEIT. Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: I think that non duplicate content should to merged back into the main article. REDUNDANTFORK does apply. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't have any strong Keep arguments thus far but should some content be Merged into Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: Most of the coverage is quite routine and lacks anything particularly unusual so I don’t see NEVENT being easily met, so a standalone article isn't necessary at this time. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Duki coal mine attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Should be merged into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 like other similar incidents. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024: Into existing article. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say do not RUSHDELETE. Since this happened just a few days ago and we still need to determine if it meets or fails the NEVENT, I would suggest Draftify it for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. Not a lot here that can’t be contained in the list article easily. If it does prove notable through depth and length of coverage - which, there are some indications this might, it can always be re-split out. I oppose draftifying because there’s no problems solved there not solved by a merger. Pakistan specifically only very rarely has long term coverage of events that would receive retrospective coverage in many other countries. But this one seems quite severe so it could change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 article since that suggestion was sockstriked PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to redirect. Even if there's nothing to merge I find maintaining the link as a redirect makes it clearer to future readers that there was once a page there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already in Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024.--Gul Butt (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the terrorist attack is notable enough with significant no. of deaths and easily passes WP:GNG. Mister Banker (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 21 deaths is a not insignificant number, and its too soon to declare WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NEVENT Jebiguess (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gul Butt, a merge is unnecessary in this case. This is a WP:News article and lacks sustained, significant, secondary coverage. Notability is not inherited by casualty count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. I think WP:NOTNEWS comes into play here. Although the event was significant, it remains a news story, and it's hard to tell what impact it will have later on (WP:CRYSTALBALL). By merging it, users will be able to find the event if needed, but I don't think a standalone article is merited at this time. DesiMoore (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the attack passes WP:NCRIME in which foreign nationals were killed and received a WP:DIVERSE coverage. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant damage happened here and the sourcing is also not weak. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge but Keeps are weak, just asserting the subject is notable without highlighting what sources help establish GNG. Claims have to be backed up by evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: there were only 2 merge !votes prior to your relisting. It's seems like you are just going to re-list until the time the result seems favorable to your POV. Mister Banker (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Banker, I don't care what happens with this particular article, I was just assessing the discussion as I saw it at the time. But since you have raised objections, I will let other editors/admins handle this discussion in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the list of "Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024"; this can always be broken out again into a new article if it turns out this is a substantially notable event. It doesn't seem to be at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the terrorist attacks list, where it is already discussed. Merging would not be appropriate since there's already the standard amount of info present in the list entry. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions