Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Punjab

Pakistan

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

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

The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.Hanes Talk 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Sources were removed previously that have been restored. RangersRus (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @RangersRus, but I have removed the Gazetteers Sources as they are considered unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Mr.Hanes Talk 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article Afghan–Sikh Wars or to Hari Singh Nalwa (Battle of Mangal (1821)) as this article lack content to expand. QEnigma talk 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

Mirpur district, India (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)

Muzaffarabad District, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Lacks notability. Previously deleted article was restored without any discussion. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries, even if these are not de-facto the case. Reliable sources support the existence of this administrative division as a de-jure administrative unit within Indian maps. For similar examples, see Mêdog County, Lhünzê County, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces. --Rvd4life (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with Sheriff's nomination and his reasons described above for deletion of this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fateh Muhammad (Captain)

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

The article lacks evidence of notability. It is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There is one secondary source (Condon) but it merely states that the viceroy complimented Muhammad on the smartness of the battalion and presented him with a walking stick. RegentsPark (comment) 18:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 18:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added Newspaper references to the King's Indian Orderly Officers section. There is also a newspaper reference for his appointment as Sir Phillip Chetwode's Aide-de-Camp which I will add by tomorrow. Daniyal Raja (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniyal Raja: The Glasgow Herald source doesn't mention him. Could you please provide the exact quote from the Western Daily Press? The citation is behind a paywall of sorts. RegentsPark (comment) 18:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very clear mention of him in both The Glasgow Herald references.

On the May 13, 1931 edition, his name is stated on page 15 under the title "The Court". Paragraph 3 says "The King received Lieutenant-Colonel G.B. Howell, 19th King George's Own Lancers (Officers in Charge) and the King's Indian Orderly Officers as follows, who were presented to His Majesty by Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart Patterson (Political Aide-de-Camp to the secretary state of India):-- Subadar-Major and Honorary Lieutenant Fateh Muhammad; Sardar Bahadur, 3rd-12th Frontier Force Regiment (Sikhs).........".

The other Glasgow Herald mention is April 7, 1931, page 2 under the title "King's Indian Orderly Officers" (just above the solutions of of yesterday's puzzles).

That paragraph says " The King's Indian Orderly Officers for this year will, it is officially announced, be Subadar-Major and Honorary Lieutenant Fateh Muhammad, 3rd-12th Frontier Force Regiment; Subadar-Major Rahimdad Khan, 1st-6th Rajputana Rifles........."

Both the Glasgow Herald references lead you exactly to these 2 pages. I don't know how it's looking on your end but they lead me directly to those 2 pages with his name his name or the section highlighted.

As for the Western Daily Press one, It is unfortunately behind a paywall but it states in full

"NEW INDIAN ORDERLIES ARRIVAL AT PLYMOUTH OF KING'S VETERAN ATTENDANTS

The four new Indian orderlies of the King arrived at Plymouth yesterday in the P. and O. Ranpura. They are Subadar Maj. and Hon. Lieut. Fateh Mohamed Khan, Resaldar Major Malik Khan, Resaldar Painda Khan, and Resalder Rahun-Dad Khan.

They proceeded to London in the Indian mail steamer. Their combined Army services amount to well over a hundred years.

Members of the Royal Commission on Labour in India also arrived in the Ranpura and proceeded to London in the liner." Daniyal Raja (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apologies for missing the references in the Glasgow Herald. Unfortunately, all these references are merely stating facts relating to Muhammad. It is unclear if any of these are notable. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, no good indepth sources about him. Fram (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom mentions, there should be more notability in the form of secondary sourcing with significant coverage of the individual.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sadiq Malkani

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

Fails WP:PROF. This guy is mostly known for naming dubious species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in predatory journals like SCIRP. Looking at his scholar citations shows extensive self-citation and very few citations from independent researchers for the vast majority of his paleontology research papers (with the notable exception of "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan" published in Science in 2001, but he is only 1 of 5 authors and is not the corresponding author). His research is in general widely ignored by paleontologists and has had little impact on the field. His geology-related citations look very run of the mill and not enough to pass PROF either. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage. This story in the Pakistan Express Tribune [1] seems like passing coverage to me and not enough for notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science and Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Further evidence of the Enshittification of academic research. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sajidabad

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

In doing new page review, my initial instinct was to WP:BLAR this to Orangi Town, but when I went to leave the user notice, I saw the discussion on the blocked creator's talk page and now I am convinced even a redirect is inappropriate. Searching for sources, this neighborhood doesn't even pass WP:V, much less WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. Sajidabad doesn't appear in either of the sources/external links left in this article. The only thing I can find on the topic at all is the page creator's marketing agency, a source that was removed for obvious reasons. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is very unencyclopedic. Most articles about a city don't mention their businesses, unless it is a very big multinational corporation (I might be wrong about that too). I'm pretty sure no one aside from people within or near the locality have seen their businesses, which means there is no reason to put them there, unless it's to advertise. The "demographics" section doesn't even specify its population (the number), which is the first thing that it should have (in my opinion).

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to help, but it simply wasn't notable or verifiable. Safrolic (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author's argument Firecat93 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one was on my radar from dealing with the marketing agency promotion, and I also failed to find any significant mentions of the neighbourhood. I suspect that many of the other linked areas in Orangi Town would also fail notability. Meters (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: This article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. There simply isn't enough sourcing to justify it.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majoka

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

Googling "Majoka" "tribe" -wikipedia, I find nothing relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Punjab, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article on this topic on Urdu wiki seems pretty extensive, but mostly unsourced. Furius (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look in google books for details, but very few sources. Maybe non-english sources are there. Asteramellus (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not many sources available, e.g. tired google books. Asteramellus (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul-mcdevil (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Paul-mcdevil (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the Western Punjabi article, which has some book sources. Unsure if they are reliable. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Ibn Farooq

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

This is an article about an American Muslim missionary who runs a Masjid in California and also has a YouTube channel. I looked through the article's sourcing, and found it relatively lacking:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
OneMessageFoundation on YouTube	The BLP subject is more or less the person who runs the One Message Foundation	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Canadian Dawah Conference	This is a speaker bio for a conference at which the BLP subject spoke	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Know Your Sheik	This is the same speaker bio as given for the Canadian Dahwah Conference, almost verbatim. This appears to be merely a host for self-submitted bios of Sheiks	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Masjid Ribat	The BLP subject serves as the Imam at Masjid Al-Ribat	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

After noticing this, I also tried to look for independent significant coverage of this individual from reliable news sources via an online search. Google news returned zero results for search terms Uthman Ibn Farooq Khan Yusufzai and عثمان بن فاروق خان یوسفزی (his Pashto name). But I was able to find some articles that mention a certain "Uthman Ibn Farooq" that are not presently cited:

Middle East Forum: 1, 2 (apparent opinion piece), 3, 4, 5, 6
Arab News: 1 (labeled opinion piece)
Trinidad and Tobago Guardian: 1 (describing him as among a group denied into the country)
Voice of the Cape: 1
Politics Nigeria: 1

But I don't think this is enough to warrant an article. Middle East Forum is deemed unreliable at WP:NPPSG and the Arab News source is an editorial and thus not contributing towards notability, so these obviously don't help meet WP:NBASIC. "Voice of the Cape" is a local religious community radio station, and "Politics Nigeria" frankly looks like an online politics blog; while neither are mentioned in the WP:NPPSG (and have never been discussed at RSN, from what I can tell), I don't think either are reliable enough to contribute towards notability. And that leaves us with a single article in the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, but no single source can satisfy the requirement that multiple qualifying sources cover a subject for them to be presumed notable.

As such, I do not think that this WP:BLP meets the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC. And, in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, I think we should delete this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, and California. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you're correct, there is only 4 references, one of which is a link to his YouTube channel and the another is a link to a website of a random mosque where there is inadequate information regarding him, the remaining two don't give any indepth and verifiable information regarding him. Codonified (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find forums and op eds. There is no independent coverage in reliable sources, and there is way too much unsourced content in the article for it to remain in the main space. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Shahzad

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [2] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [3], [4], [5], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. I tried PROD, but Bilby keeps removing the tag, adding what they claim to be citations but they provide no URLs; either way even with those refs, the article still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major international competition, featuring two of the main cricketing nations, (and almost including a third with the West Indies almost competing) that happened over multiple years, and was well covered in the news when it was happening between 1996 and 1999 (when it ended due to a well-covered series of issues that stemmed from the start of the Kargil war in 1999). I'm using print sources, as the event occured over 25 years ago, but I'm not having any difficulty coming up with references. I'll keep adding sources, though, in the hope that it helps. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, India, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This competition, featuring 2–3 ICC Full Members, is more than notable. It has widespread press coverage, and had in its time, its own fair share of controversy, such as in 1997 when Inzamam tried to beat up a fan with his bat! AA (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meet WP:GNG in WP:NSPORT (and WP:CRIN / WP:OFFCRIC) criteria. An ODI cricket tournament featuring full memebers of the ICC is considered notable. ESPNcricinfo article ([6]) and statistics ([7] and [8]). Few of the many sources available online: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. A simple web search will reveal numerous additional news articles. QEnigma talk 15:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of significant coverage available for this event featuring two full ICC members. Shrug02 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the two countries involved, this competition was as notable as The Ashes. Contributor892z (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage of the subject. Gauravs 51 (talk)

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.

Daily Dunya

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

This article is about the company that owns Daily Dunya, this is a directory reference, and this is a mention. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not seem notable. Fails WP:GNG. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a member of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (indicative, not determinative), and there's quite a lot of English-language analysis of its publications on GScholar[16]. From [17] found there, "The Urdu newspaper stories were extracted from the top five large circulation national dailies that is Daily Jang, Daily Dunya, Express, Daily Aaj, and Nawa-e-Waqt...". I presume that given the English language coverage evident that there would also be a level of coverage in Urdu. Its journalists have received awards[18][19] - reported on by unrelated sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Wikipedia articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan[reply]
Keep The sources currently in the article and even more in a BEFORE search do demonstrate it passes WP:GNG as a major infrastructure project, though it does need a rewrite. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:46, 4 January 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Nisar Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources are either passing mentions or fail WP:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notable for one event only. Zuck28 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was one of a fair number of religious leaders arrested at the time, but doesn't appear separately notable. The sectarian clashes in Gilgit-Baltistan of October 2005 look notable enough, so he could be (briefly) covered under and redirected to an article on that if that existed. He should not be confused with Dr Qazi Nisar Ahmed (died 1994)[20] who looks likely to be notable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 4 January 2025 (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.

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [21] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [22] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions