Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularism in Pakistan

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. There is some support for converting this article to a redirect although there is a difference of opinion on its target. This can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism in Pakistan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ever since the Republic of Pakistan has come into existence, its an Islamic state. Also, there is no such notable Secularist movement in Pakistan. This poorly written article doesn't cover anything substantial on "Secularism in Pakistan". Dympies (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange nomination. There are plenty of academic papers, and even newspaper articles, discussing secularism in Pakistan, therefore it is notable. Keep. JMWt (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per clause 3, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. Even if everything in the nomination were true, and that is debatable, no policy-based cause for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is making a good argument for WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources prove any "secularism in Pakistan". First section is about Two-nation theory and second one is about Islamization in Pakistan. We cannot have article only because we need to have one. We don't have Secularism in China either. @Jclemens and JMWt: I hope you guys will change your vote. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, that's not an argument based on any known policy. If there are sufficient reliable sources, the topic is notable. The end. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Two-nation theory. I agree this article subscribes WP:OR. Based on fringe ideas of individual scholars, it doesn't deserve a separate space. There are a few people in Pakistan who believe that Pakistan should go back to Mughal dynasty, but that doesn't owe us a "Mughalism in Pakistan" page, even if such individuals get their opinions published in newspapers. Insight 3 (talk)
Keep or Redirect to Islam and secularism#Pakistan. Detail opinion: a) Pakistan need not be a secular state to have article on Secularism in Pakistan. b) Pakistan is not SA. Though in very weak form Pakistan always had left leaning politics having (pseudo or disguised?)–secular instincts in some form. c) If we take a look @ google scholar and Pakistan related academic books at least for criticism sake topic of Secularism in Pakistan has been widely enough discussed justifying possibility of encyclopedic coverage, though current status of the wp article is very far from ideal. d) Two nation theory discusses prominence of religious politics, where as concept of Secularism in Pakistan is supposed to discuss Secular instincts and criticism there of in Pakistani polity, IMO in a way that is difference of weightage. Bookku (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: what exactly is the criteria for having an article on Secularism in XYZ country? You gave an example of SA (Saudi Arabia). Obviously some liberal elements who support a secular democracy exist in SA too. By that logic, we can have an article on Secularism in Saudi Arabia. As per my understanding, we should have Secularism in XYZ country only if: i) its a secular country at present (like India); ii) it was a secular country in past (like Bangladesh); iii) it has no state religion (like Indonesia). Other than these three categories, I don't see any sense in keeping such articles. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it has always been an Islamic state since it made a constitution of its own. So, it should be deleted. Dympies (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar gives 10 page result for "Secularism in Pakistan" (and only 3 results for SA). So academic discourse exists for Pakistan. I suggest priority for RS over perception. Bookku (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: So if we get 10 results which say "Secularism in Pakistan doesn't exist", are we still going to create an article on subject? We need to discuss this matter at a larger platform as there are too many articles of such type.Dympies (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how one wants to read January , 2013 some liberals held a seminar ‘Democracy and secularism in Pakistan: Its need and importance’, So intermittently discourse happens. In the same seminar some one said ‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan' ; The same sensational headline picked up by news paper but fact is seminar could take place peacefully. Ref

discourse is present. Per

WP:Before

you could have discussed AfD proposal first on the article talk page. (Emphasis added) Article can very well be renamed 'Liberal discourse in Pakistan' or 'Secular discourse in Pakistan' or '

Discourse about liberalism and secularism in Pakistan

'.

Bookku (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the topic meets GNG with coverage in multiple scholarly sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and many more. There's serious logical fallacies in the nomination and the arguments to delete: the nature of a government has very little to do with whether there is a movement for secularism. They're akin to saying that since the US is a baseball-playing country, Cricket in the United States should not exist. The content is poorly sourced but not off topic or inaccurate; the article needs fleshing out, but TNT is not justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 23 December 2022 (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.