Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistaniat

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 Adil Najam. This is probably a merge but given that it has effectively already been done, redirecting it alone should be enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistaniat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Dormant since 2011. Weak coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This website is still useful in gathering references while editing Wikipedia despite the fact they are not adding much new material to it lately. I have been using it. Still they have a lot there that can be used.Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ILIKEIT. Störm (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For you User:Störm, I can similarly say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Seriously though, in fact, I said above that the website is still useful to all Wikipedia editors because of what is still available on this website. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge: In addition to the one reference on the article, I found another reference by BBC Monitoring through Factiva (Factiva BBCSAP0020071111e3bb00439) and one on the Boston Globe here. Unfortunately you need a Factiva account to view that one. I'm new to deletion discussions, so I do not know whether this would be considered trivial coverage per WP:WEBCRIT. So in my opinion keep if this is non-trivial coverage or merge with Adil Najam if it is trivial coverage.  Bait30  ^Talk? 04:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have amended my previous statement and have decided that all the mentions of Pakistaniat in reliable sources are passing mentions of the subject.  Bait30  ^Talk? 21:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the references mentioned above by  Bait30 , I took the time to add another 4 following references today:

• The Guardian newspaper
• U.S. National Public Radio website
• Dawn (newspaper)
• Boston Globe newspaper
• Outlook (Indian magazine)

Hope this helps. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - note that I am also in favor of redirect/merge. Störm (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2019 (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.