Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSP)
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan.
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:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan edit

Live with Moeed Pirzada edit

Live with Moeed Pirzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Page relies mostly on what I safely can call [unreliable sources]. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East edit

Hellenized Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [1]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.
It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
    • Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
    • The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
    • The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson edit

AfDs for this article:
Margaret Adamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Entertainment edit

Green Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source [2] seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR. I think this gives a possible option to redirect the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was [3], but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to Merge to ISPR at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be merged to the ISPR article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar edit

Malaal-e-Yaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible edit

Shaadi Impossible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan'nisar edit

Jaan'nisar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. Not to be confused with coverage of 2024 TV drama with the same name. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab conquest of Kaikan edit

Arab conquest of Kaikan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no point in keeping this article along with its parent article Umayyad campaigns in India, when there are no sources explicitly covering this event as "Arab conquest of Kaikan", the source cited in the lead for it nowhere mentions this event as the title. Another problem with orginal researched articles is their defined timeline, despite having no source for the hoax timelines the authors of these articles love to furnish their own preferred timeline of one, two or even three centuries. The article topic also seems to lack notability and significant coverage as there are many uncertainty and unknown belligerents. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasak Rahay Ge edit

Kasak Rahay Ge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aas (TV series) edit

Aas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karamat-e-Ishq edit

Karamat-e-Ishq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Dadi Aur Gharwale edit

Omer Dadi Aur Gharwale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) edit

Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage except some namechecks coverage and much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Naru edit

Umer Naru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas. The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ki Chandni edit

Raja Ki Chandni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Telefilms: is mentioned there. There are currently SO MANY Pakistan-related ongoing Afds including a lot concerning films or series that I would like to suggest redirects for all them, including potential future ones. I am therefore inviting future nominators of such pages to consider redirects, in the future, for the pages they find non-notable, without initiating AfDs, whenever they think redirects could be appropriate and if that seems possible. It is almost impossible for interested and willing users to verify and improve all of them at the same time, and even to take the time to check sources and content in order to !vote. This might become an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, I don't mind redirects, but the problem is the page keeps getting recreated. I have seen that if we revert and redirect, it turns into an edit war. It's better to just delete the page. If the subject is notable, someone can always create a draft and submit it for the main namespace. I know redirects are "cheap," but they're WP:COSTLY too and lead to unwanted edit wars. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is as easy to ask for page protection of the Redirected page through the rpp script as it is to XFd/PROD/tag a page for notability via TWINKLE, if potential (or real) edit war is really you concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe Beta Chahiye edit

Mujhe Beta Chahiye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kab Mere Kehlaoge edit

Kab Mere Kehlaoge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seep (TV series) edit

Seep (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khuwabzaadi edit

Khuwabzaadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aadat edit

Aadat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munkir (TV series) edit

Munkir (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Ke Moti edit

Mann Ke Moti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main Gunehgar Nahi edit

Main Gunehgar Nahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay edit

Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehryar Shehzadi edit

Shehryar Shehzadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series) edit

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this, this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoon Mein Pali edit

Ladoon Mein Pali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kissey Apna Kahein edit

Kissey Apna Kahein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Hamrahi edit

Mere Hamrahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Muhallay Ki Haveli edit

Dil Muhallay Ki Haveli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr-e-Ajnabi edit

Shehr-e-Ajnabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareek-e-Hayat edit

Shareek-e-Hayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Party Pakistan edit

Apni Party Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. The only reference is a list of all the political parties in Pakistan – 168 of them. They're not all notable, or worthy of mention. Many, if not most, will disappear without a candidate who wins anything, or having any noteworthy coverage. If its candidate wins a seat in the next election, or in a few years, it can have an article. Unless notability is established in some way, this one should be deleted. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A single sentence and a single source simply stating that the party exists isn't enough for notability. The party hasn't won a single election yet (that I could find), nor could I find any reporting of the party, or even a profile on what the party believes. We just don't have enough for an article at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, articles author made a request for undeletion before this deletion discussion was finished. This could be relevant. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha season 2 edit

Tamasha season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tamasha Season 2 hasn't received coverage that should satisfy GNG. The only coverage I found are ROTM - all from same publication - like this, this, and this one. Not enough because Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. and provided coverage is without bylines. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main edit

Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage and announcements/press release based coverage like this and this, and pieces by freelancers in RS like this all of which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Ka Dulha edit

Pinky Ka Dulha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (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.

Provincial Institute of Teacher Education Nawabshah edit

Provincial Institute of Teacher Education Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity And Child Health Care Institute Benazirabad edit

Maternity And Child Health Care Institute Benazirabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development edit

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilawal Stadium edit

Bilawal Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taluka Hospital Sakrand edit

Taluka Hospital Sakrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town Nawabshah edit

Bahria Town Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - the nominator nominated 7 articles for deletion within the scope of 2 minutes, with identical deletion rationales. I strongly doubt any serious WP:BEFORE was performed here. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman, So, basically, just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. Why don't you come with some coverage that meets the GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: According to my check, I looked for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to establish notability, but I found this and not much more detailed coverage. These articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject and can’t establish notability. The subject fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah edit

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Rahim edit

Fahim Rahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Pakistan, and Idaho. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This BLP appears to be highly PROMO, written by a blocked sockpuppet, and reads more like a resume to promote themselves and their business. While the subject has won some awards, it's unclear if any of them are notable. According to ANYBIO, we may have to keep the BLP if any of the awards are significant. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memoona Qudoos edit

Memoona Qudoos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this, this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Front edit

Lahore Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a collection of several separate battles fought, for which wiki pages exist. These include the Battle of Burki, Battle of Asal Uttar, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai edit

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. Received some ROTM "Pakistan Media Awards" —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhool (2019 TV series) edit

Bhool (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (  Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Harjai edit

Mere Harjai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Sajjad edit

Azeem Sajjad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas, and also the TV dramas and film he directed fail GNG themselves. The subject also doesn't meet GNG. Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry. Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable. If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions. Muneebll (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." (Dawn), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." (Dawn), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" (Dawn), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969). According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores. ", (Dawn), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series) edit

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First things first—NTV is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Secondly, yes, it fails to meet WP:GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage which isn't sufficient. For example, this coverage based on interviews doesn't meet GNG because it's not independent of the subject, and this other coverage is more like a press release. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for average hits we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angna (TV series) edit

Angna (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. Some ROTM coverage like this isn't sufficient. The article is based on several unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but are fair enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhan (TV series) edit

Dulhan (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. The article relies on unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series) edit

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari edit

Hoor Pari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc.The article is based on some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: listed there. Some sources can be transferred. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Khuda edit

Mere Khuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon edit

Ehraam-e-Junoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage in RS. ROTM coverage like this, and namechecks like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (  Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
    • Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. There's many citations available on search to improve the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abro (tribe) edit

Abro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK:
Though I would share main concern. I suppose it needs deeper collective thought. I do not see any WP:RFCBEFORE to have taken place at Talk:Abro (tribe) or rather better would have been at WT:PAK.
Likelihood of similar articles in 100s?
Category:Sindhi tribes likely to have more than 250 similar stubs. The way articles seem to have formed I can imagine similar would be the case for many in Category:Tribes of Pakistan. Though there is one central article Ethnic groups of Pakistan it's scope does not seem to be tribal specific.
Importance of topic and issue
I am surprised region wise central articles for tribes of Pakistan do not exist but such large number of stubs going no where seem to exist. Baradari (brotherhood) system is influential cultural part of Pakistan and that article too is a stub. Tribal and ethnicity antecedents form clan culture / Baradari (brotherhood) so anthropologically it's important core of Pakistan's demographic history. Though not paid enough attention to on WP.
Idk if any similar articles were listed and deleted up til now but my suggestion is Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK. If no one is ready to work on the drafts then put in my user name space I shall try to promote for expansion in due course. Bookku (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is it really possible to merge all region wise articles? There are many which may not be suitable for a single list-like descriptive article publishing. Jadeja, Kalhora, Soomro, Jokhio, Bhutto, Burfat are some examples. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well developed ones need not be merged. Even for region list may be long but it can be further divided tribal district wise because many tribes are likely to be concentrated in few districts only. May be you can have separate article for extinct tribes. End of the day AfD is would not be right venue to take a detail call but project notice board would be IMO. Bookku (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameja (clan) edit

Sameja (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. The references provided are more than sufficient and reliable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know nothing about this although I am confused about the content of the page. First Samma (tribe) is said to be a clan, then Sameja (clan) is said to be a clan and then on the page there are clans (or subclans?). It is unclear to me how many of the sources on the page are actually substantially discussing the topic. Second, there are wp pages in other languages for Samma (tribe) but none have one for Sameja (clan). It strikes me that unless someone can show a source which goes into depth then we should maybe follow the lead of the other WP language versions. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe) edit

Shoro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe) edit

Soho (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Mustafa Hassan edit

Agha Mustafa Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is harassing me by calling me UPE/sock on numerous platforms without any single evidence and nominating all articles created/edited by me despite meeting criteria. As for this AFD, he is clearly meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I am presenting some sources from reliable newspapers for proving my point.

  • The News International [21] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can self choose three best coverage from the ones i mentioned above as they all are best sources and are sufficient to meet GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Libraa2019, It's up to you to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should be good enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of them are best coverage. These sources are covering this actor in-depth. i presented more than what you have asked. Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Pakistan, all of them are reliable and authentic newspapers & These sources are available in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles.. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Libraa2019, Either you're not willing to grasp my point or perhaps simply refuse to WP:LISTEN. Is it a strategy to simply ignore, hoping the AfD will close with no consensus? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Such things applied to you. In personal disagreements you've gone too far. Editors have told you on other AFD's that i presented more than what you asked [22] [23] [24] [25] but you have decided not to listen any. I said it personal because you are Labelling every authentic source as unreliable, every role as minor and hoping to delete articles despite of these articles meeting criteria. Libraa2019 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am providing some other reliable sources which i found during research.
  • Bol News [28] [29] Libraa2019 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Offering numerous sources won't necessarily strengthen the argument. Can you provide THREE excellent sources instead? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history at mutiple AFD's indicates that i provide authentic sources and you reject so please leave some things to others. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you mentioned at Imaam Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [30] but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NACTOR seems met, with various significant roles (although not lead) in notable productions. (Also, WP:THREE is an WP:Essay.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I oppose the nominators rationale that this article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR where there is a serious presentation of source that we know meets WP:RS. There is no need for WP:THREE here when there are plenty sources already in the article. Please KEEP. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are casting announcements or interviews/based on what he says and one of the sources used in the article does not mention him. A few of the sources do mention his role in Tere Bin (2022 TV series) but it's trivial coverage and only one role. In order to meet WP:NACTOR it has to be shown his roles in multiple notable productions were significant which is proven through sources that have written about him/his roles which is lacking here. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir its consequently third time where Saqib nominated my creation in retaliation & you voted delete. I am unable to satisfy you despite providing multiple authentic sources which are covering him in-depth. Sources are not only interviews like Daily Times states, Agha Mustafa Hassan has no doubt made his mark in the industry. The young actor and model has been winning the hearts of people since 2016 due to his exceptional acting skills. Dawn News wrote, Agha Mustafa Hasan made his acting debut with the 2016 popular drama 'Sang e Mar Mar', after which he showed his acting chops in several popular dramas and theaters as well as films. He has played supporting roles in dramas including Pinjara, Neeli Zinda Hai, More Siyan, Mere Own, Run, Silla Mohabbate, Sar Rah and Tere Bin. Eastern Eye said Acclaimed Pakistani actor Agha Mustafa Hassan started off his career in theatre and then made a winning transition to television with popular drama serials like Sila-e-Mohabbat, Dour, Neeli Zinda Hai, Kahin Deep Jaley and Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main. The versatile performer continues to take on new challenges on-screen, but also has a close connection to good content as an audience member, And the rest of the sources also covering him significantly. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Libraa2019 Thanks. Can you link to those articles and do you have another one that talks about his career? I'll take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure Sir, i will link that to article and thats the only issue, the BLP needs references and Should be tagged for "Additional Citations". It does'nt mean we just delete it despite multiple coverage on google. I have mentioned many sources in this AFD, please review them and i will surely add them to BLP. And please dont read sources on this BLP as it was my initial days and some one else also added one fake source in which subject has no where mentioned, I will surely work into it. But due to this nomination, I have provided all the required sources in this AFD for evaluation. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Libraa2019 Like I said, I will take a look if you can link to the articles you are referencing. If they are listed above, please let me know which ones because there are more than one DT and Dawn listed. While I did look at all them, I may missed something. S0091 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Respected S0091, as requested, attaching few sources. Daily Times [31], Eastern Eye [32], DAWN News [33], DAWN News [34] Libraa2019 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Daily Times has role by-line (Web Desk) and is a press release announcing he has been cast in Neeli Zinda Hai so is a primary source and not independent. Here is another article which is almost word-for-word the same. The Eastern Eye is also a role by-line and is list of Hassan's favourite 10 TV shows so primary with a brief introduction listing some of the shows he has acted in. The first Dawn is a role by-line (Entertainment Desk) and based on an interview so primary. It lists some of the shows he has acted in and does state His negative role in Tere Bin, Malik Zubair, was well received but doesn't state by whom. The second Dawn is about what he said during his appearance on Sama TV's morning show so primary and also lists shows he has acted in and states His negative role in 'Tere Bin', Malik Zubair, was highly appreciated. I note that the two Dawn's were published years apart, one in 2021 and one in 2023 and the portion that talks about is career is almost word-for-word the same (what you quoted above) which suggests it is a standard a blurb. None of these demonstrate the significance of his roles outside of maybe Tere Bin but even those are trivial mentions. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All of them are not primary, i am doubting your assessment and if they are primary then what exactly are the secondary sources. Also you can check this sources too DAWN News [35], Dawn Images [36], The News International [37], Geo News [38],Daily Aaj [39], Bol News [40] [41] Libraa2019 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      See PSTS. Primary sources can be used sparingly but do not establish notability. Analysis of his work/life would be secondary but press releases, interviews/what he says are primary. I will find some examples and share them with you on your talk page. As for these additional sources, one is the same Dawn from above and the other two are mentions in a list of cast members. S0091 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) edit

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashaf Alvi edit

Kashaf Alvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to see how this TEEN meets the WP:N for WP:NAUTHOR or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing isn't stellar but sufficient to keep the article under general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cortador, So, are you suggesting that we keep this BLP even though we don't have enough coverage meeting WP:SIRS to establish GNG, but because he got some ROTM coverage? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      SIRS doesn't apply to people and has no relevance here. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Cortador, Noted. Are you willing to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should meets GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Teenage is not a disqualifier as we don't discriminate somone's abilities based on their age. We are an inclusive encyclopedia, that's why we have plenty of articles on such topics Category:2003 births. This in-depth article in Arab News is written by Saima Shabbir. The book has been reviewd in Dawn ([42]) and The Nation ([43]) by their staff members (when a newspaper writes "staff report" it is enough to prove the reliability). Wieles (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And let's not apply guidelines randomly to the mix. WP:SIRS is for corporations/organizations. Wieles (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wieles, So, it looks like he's only authored this one book, which got some coverage in RS. Is just writing one book enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR? Seems like a pretty ROTM author. And it makes me wonder, if someone just writes a book and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a WP BLP? As for the coverage, DAWN coverage seems pretty ROTM to me. It's not sig/in-depth as required by GNG. And The Nation coverage is based on his interview, which also isn't sig/in-depth or even independent of the subject. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say no. They also don't qualify as reviews of the book, as WP:NAUTHOR states work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get a BLP because he's a TEEN! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cortador. Meets WP:AUTHOR. Arab News, Dawn, The Nation articles are enough. 80.234.152.31 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working Women (TV series) edit

Working Women (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With quite a few WP:RS cited in the article. Also, the sources you mentioned in the nomination's rationale do help in meeting WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cocobb8, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here. And the ones I provided in my nomination aiove are not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage. not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered significant coverage. Hope this clarifies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Saqib: Sources like this and this do help in potentially establishing WP:GNG, but I'll leave it to other editors to see what they think as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I too do believe the Youlin review and the Daily Pakistan one cannot be dismissed. They're signed and the periodicals cannot be considered unreliable. The piece in Feminism in India has one paragraph: Working Women showcases the realities of women in the modern society of the 21st century. The story overcomes biases and embraces the range of experiences because of the characters’ intersectionality, which enables it to touch on a number of facets of womanhood. Every woman is a representation of a certain aspect of the difficulties women encounter while pursuing a successful career and personal life. The drama encourages viewers to consider the expectations society places on women as it progresses. It also establishes a new benchmark for poignant and significant storytelling. The 2 paragraphs in Dawn, mentioned by Saqib, are not "routine" and I find the opening statement rather significant: While most commercial shows offer us a carefully sanitised version of life, scripts from writer Bee Gul show us a world with all the rough edges and inconsistencies intact. Lucy aka Nusrat (Maria Wasti) is a wealthy real estate agent for urban elites. The first episode shows her pondering her fate as a lonely, single woman heading towards middle age, while her friends are comfortably married with children. By episode three, she has a disparate collection of women to keep her company as paying guests. The credit for making this set-up believable goes to director Yasra Rizvi and the actresses playing each paying guest character: Srha Asghar plays Amber, a bitter, poor little rich girl who has lost her home because of a boyfriend; Faiza Gilani plays Hashmat, a woman escaping sexual harassment; Ilsa Hareem is a runaway teenage bride; and there are more. And the rest of the sources include mostly interviews but allow verification of the cast/date, production history and basic facts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain edit

101 Talaqain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song) edit

We Are One (global collaboration song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [44] and this from the UN [45]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the same song? [46], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
    three best sources     to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [47], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal edit

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Afzal Khan edit

Danial Afzal Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone, They nominated Abdullah Seja, added notability tag to Qudsia Ali, Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [48], the tag was removed by another senior editor [49] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [50]. These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha, see Talk:Abu Aleeha. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - appears to be WP:NACTOR with [51] and [52]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (  Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added few, merely not based on interviews. There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on. I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them. For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam, Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think CNMall41 (talk · contribs) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help. You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep multiple notable roles through which passes WP:NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [53] therefore passes WP:GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide evidence indicating major roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already provided. You are not ready to check any. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences.
  • Daily Times [54]
  • Daily Times [68] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show proof that the subject had major roles. None of the sources you've provided confirm this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes?? As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source. If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system, the same you did with Abdullah Seja. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For other editors and record, All the attached sources are claiming he has played significant roles in multiple television serials and he also played a lead role in feature film Aksbandh, [69] Libraa2019 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, No. I haven't been able to verify your claims that the subject had major roles in TV dramas, except for a 90-minute short film Aksbandh, which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Fyi, simply doing some supporting roles in TV dramas isn't enough to qualify under NACTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:BASIC, if an actor has sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he/she is notable. He played major role in Kab Mere Kehlaoge, Mohlat etc. And btw that comment was for other editors not you. Sources likeThe Express Tribune, DAWN, The News International did'nt satisfy you because article is my creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Please clarify whether you want to assess WP:N based on NACTOR or GNG. If GNG, please provide THREE best sources. And thanks for informing me about Kab Mere Kehlaoge; it doesn't appear to be a notable drama. I've AfD'd it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are not an admin to whom i will respond and satisfy every time. Many editors have told you that i am presenting authentic sources but you denied [70] [71] I have provided more than 10 reliable sources for others and if any senior editor will demand, i will provide them. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking through the first few sources presented, The Nation is a Q&A interview so primary, The Express Tribune is casting announcement with a mention and Dawn is mention. This Daily Times is a casting announcement for Mohabbat Dagh ki Soorat which is not listed in the filmography and states it is an "appearance" so not a significant role and does not appear to be notable show (no article). The two The News International articles are interviews but they at least have some background information. While some roles they mention are not significant/noble, they both mention his performance as Nomi in Raaz-e-Ulfat so I think that role meets the significant/notable bar but multiple are required to meet WP:NACTOR. As I go through the other shows listed in the filmography I am finding most do not meet GNG, at least based on the sources currently provided so while some of the roles might be significant I cannot make the stretch they are notable productions. Draftifying might be an option until the notability of the other shows can be determined. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You endorse most of the AFD's initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here you ignored WP:BASIC, plenty of excellent sources covering him. I have presented more than enough sources. Subject has started career around 8 years ago and i dont think so he deserves draftification right now as major publications like The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News International are covering him. And secondly he has a lead role in feature film Aksbandh [74].
    • And one more thing i want you to notice, Saqib mentioned at Imaan Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [75] (that article was his creation) but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Libraa2019 I am doing my own independent analysis so focusing on Saqib is not helpful. I addressed several sources directly and explained why they are not useful for notability. The two The News International sources were the best of the few I looked at. Both are interviews so are still weak sources with one them being an interview about his fitness routine and the other about his likes and dislikes, not about his career, though as I stated they do provided some background. One was published in 2020 and one in 2021 well after Aksbandh. Only one makes mention of film but all it says is that it did not do well at the box office. The one published is 2021 describes him as a "promising young actor", meaning he was still early in his career a couple years ago and eight years is not that long, especially in the entertainment industry.
      There is reason editors ask for WP:THREE; it's not just Saqib as you seem to think. While it is an essay it is one often cited in AfDs and by reviewers trying to assess drafts and new articles. Lots of sources does not mean a topic meets the notability criteria, including BASIC. If your claim is Khan meets BASIC then you need to present the specific sources that demonstrate he meets the criteria. I think it is unreasonable to expect editors to go through a list of fifteen sources, especially with no guidance on how any of them meet GNG or BASIC. Per WP:THREE I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best. I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, as far as WP:THREE, please check history of Saqib, he firstly nominated all of the articles created by me in personal disagreements or what i am unable to understand, and he has never satisfied with any provided source and called every reliable source as unreliable and every notable show/project/role as non notable [76]. Do you think he will be satisfied if i have provided three solid sources. He is contineously opposing me but has a different criteria for that particular AFD [77]. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are still choosing to focus on Saqib so let me state it more directly. Forget about Saqib. Saqib can nominate all the articles he wants but it is the community together that will determine WP:consensus so you need to convince all the others, which includes me. The best way to do that is to make a convincing argument with three to six good sources. Three is usually sufficient if they meet GNG even if one leans a little weak (sometimes two really strong sources are enough); five or six is usually enough for BASIC (could be less depending) but they need to have non-trivial coverage, along with being reliable, independent and secondary. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presented independent and secondary sources, none of them were primary and unable to understand why is requirements of wikipidea are too much tough when it comes to me but totally opposite when experienced editors like Saqib create page of a random person who has coverage only for being arrested.
You can check the sources mentioned below which are covering him. And he himself admitted that he was nominating articles without proper knowledge [78].

Libraa2019 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Libraa2019 I have already looked at all of those thus my statement I am willing to look at a three more. Please refer my comments in my delete !vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check these sources, are they able to meet GNG?

Libraa2019 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Seja edit

Abdullah Seja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:DIRECTOR or even WP:ANYBIO. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that aligns with WP:GNG. It's likely a case of UPE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Nominator is unable to understand any rationale and nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, Hold on a sec—what I'm seeing is that he's just a producer of some of the shows you mentioned above because he has COO position in a company called iDream Entertainment - the actual production company behind these TV shows. Also, I did a quick Google search, and most of these TV shows aren't noteworthy because they fail GNG on their own. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can confirm from the sources i mentioned above, he is the producer in Idream Entertainment. All the attached sources are claiming that he produced these shows. They did'nt claim that iDream Entertainment produced these shows or that he is the COO. Another thing to note that you said most of the shows aren't noteworthy which is your assumption as majority of his projects received significant coverage including but not limited to Baby Baji, Pehli Si Muhabbat, Ghisi Piti Mohabbat, Noor ul Ain, Rasm E Duniya, Beti Libraa2019 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • And Saqib, as i said in another AFD discussion, you have gone too far in personal disagreements, now you are nominating his projects for deletion [118] [119], adding notability tag to his projects [120] [121] and gaming the system (WP:Gaming) that he is not notable. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per source presented above. At least per WP:BASICOtbest (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, please avoid WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I went through a handful or so of the sources presented above and they are all brief mentions or based on what Seja says. Happy to reconsider if WP:THREE are presented (ping me). S0091 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion but did you visit the sources which i attached against each of his productions. All sources confirm his production in these projects and he can easily passes per WP:BASIC as produced more than 100 notable TV series. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For WP:BASIC you need sources with enough depth of coverage about him that one can write a biography. That's not the case here. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • He produced more than 100 television shows (Many of them are listed above with reliable source). His projects received signifacant coverage in respected sources mentioned above. Can't we assume article's notability on the basis of more than 100 series he produced? Libraa2019 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Are there any sources that talk about his significance? Also, neither of the sources currently cited in the article state he has produced 100 series so right now that fails verification. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is one source that claim this [122] but its a primary source thats why i haven't provided it earlier. Also please check this [123] i mentioned almost 29 serials in this AFD which Seja produced and mentioned more than 20 serials with reliable sources. These sources claim Seja as a producer of these projects. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The Nettv4u is not a reliable source as anyone can make a profile and the second is an interview with Ahsan Khan where he discusses making Sukoon so is also a primary source and not independent given Khan is an associate. It can be used to support what Khan said about Seja but nothing more. Also, this is not about proving he produced several TV shows. That is established but without sources that directly discuss Seja's significance, it does not matter if he produced one or one thousand. He is still young so this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON where sources have not written much about him yet but may in the coming years. See also WP:Before they were notable. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik edit

AfDs for this article:
Amna Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ahmed Malhi edit

Farhan Ahmed Malhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is a well known actor. His roles in dramas has received coverage. His education and how he started his career is mentioned.[127][128][129](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound like WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about Wp:V. I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • BeauSuzanne, As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG. Unfortunately, you haven't done that. The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject. Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick edit

Aamna Malick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[133], [134] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, the references you provided aren't even RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment sourcing seems to be weak (mainly tabloids), but it looks like she may have some notable television credits?-KH-1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg edit

Uzma Beg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Star Mississippi 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing edit

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#November, where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 May 2024 (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.

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing edit

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [135] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi edit

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:
Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.
Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.
... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...
There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information.
SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 15 DNB edit

Chak 15 DNB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added the GPS coordinates from Google Maps. The place does exist (and has buildings), but I can't find any good online sources about the location. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident edit

Bahawalnagar incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer) edit

AfDs for this article:
Asim Munir (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are allowed to use common sense. It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It simply makes no sense to delete articles when no one has searched for coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well then, perhaps you should rewrite the WP:N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11. As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why IAR / common sense exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right? Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. This is one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IAR is not a trump card, but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply. OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR. Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan edit

Unzela Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article is not noteworthy.
Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana edit

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't still get what you call PR. Though it may seem, but can't we check WP:BEFORE or any other way. This dawn.com author is a reporter per the articles written for the reliable news source. There is this from GBooks. In a search on news, I got many pop ups.here. All these are resourceful ways of checking the credibility of an article particularly to this one that focuses on Cancer(pharmaceutical) perhaps or whatever. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup edit

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australia at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
England at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Africa at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.
I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.
@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
  • Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
  • More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
  • Place to add pictures
Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.
Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.
Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.
Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY
So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played
    • top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc
    • catches and dismissals
    • reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country
    • prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney
    • explicit knockout stage performances
    I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (alternate solution): per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor (talk) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh edit

Faria Sheikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: After checking, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, but I couldn’t find any. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NACTOR, I don’t think she has played a significant role in these dramas and films. Hence, she fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 12:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan edit

AfDs for this article:
Sukaina Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.
  • I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing. It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I will stipulate the subject exists, but I can't find sufficient sourcing to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTOR. Keep assertions acquire the BURDEN of presenting RS (or at least proof of RS existing). Nothing applied or presented here puts us past this bar. BusterD (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions edit

Files for deletion edit

Category discussion debates edit

Template discussion debates edit

Redirects for deletion edit

MfD discussion debates edit

Other deletion discussions edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1225438081"