Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.
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:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

Mayor of Benazirabad

Mayor of 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)

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France (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:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Baloch

Shafqat Baloch (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 fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars (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 article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:
There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.
How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta

Operation Kahuta (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)

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [1] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghar camel amputation incident

Sanghar camel amputation 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)

It was a sad incident but WP is a not a newspaper. Clearly fails NEVENT! Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Khan Niazi

AfDs for this article:
Sardar Khan Niazi (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 BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last nomination, @Lourdes: shared a good rationale to keep this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a redirect to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Boxer

Ahsan Boxer (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)

IMO, the subject fails to meet the GNG. This BLP is relying on unreliable sources and I haven't found much in RS either about this subject that could help establish GNG. The BLP primarily focuses on the subject's 2013 arrest but WP:NOTNEWS. Saqib (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this BLP ProudRafidi also seems to have COI. — Saqib (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ibne Abbas

Syed Ibne Abbas (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)

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable. Dawn article was written by Mateen Haider (not a press release) and includes biographical information which is useful per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is a lot of coverage about him in Indian media, like Syed Ibne Abbas: Low-key diplomat knows how to handle India and [2]. 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP - I repeat diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable. WP:BASIC also states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. We don't need BLPs on each and every other head of mission. Routine coverage of head of mission is expected, therefore such coverage should not be considered sufficient to establish GNG , which requires strong sourcing. For instance, if each of the 200+ sovereign states maintains an average of minimum 100 diplomatic missions abroad, that means roughly 20,000 diplomatic missions and roughly 20,000 head of missions. Do we really need a BLP on each of them based on some routine coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar (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)

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[3][4][5][6][7]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namak Haram

Namak Haram (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)

Prod'd by TheTechie - I also couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The term "blog" can always be used lightly. What Wikipedia considers a "blog" is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:NEWSBLOG. The question is whether there is editorial oversight. Lens (ProPakistani.pk) has editors listed on the site but no editorial policy that I can find so that is up in the air in my opinion, especially since they accept PR content and I cannot determine which is which as there is nothing I see on the site that distinguishes things apart. The fact that it is itself covered by other news publications (the ones you mentioned above) does tend to lend credibility to the site however, and the domain is 20 years old so it isn't a recent startup set up simply for publicity (such as boxofficeadda.com which had been spamming Wikipedia). PakistaniCinema is seven years old yet I do not see any editorial guidelines there either. There are articles on the site that are marked "Web Desk" so those clearly fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, but there are many that are bylined as well. The problem is the byline is just a name and there is no bio associated with it anywhere on the site which raises a red flag. Maybe these should both go to RSN for opinions. Can anyone point out a few references that ARE easily distinguishable as reliable? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, Wait, many RS even cite the UK's Daily Mail, but does that make Daily Mail a RS? No.. Similarly, just because some Pakistani RS may have cited ProPakistani doesn't automatically mean we assume latter's credibility. So as I said ProPakistani engages in a lot of PR activities. Its owner, Shayan Mahmud, also owns a advertising/PR agency, also raises concerns about the credibility of ProPakistani which IMO operating more like a PR agency than a news website. Anyone could pay them to publish articles. For what it's worth, Lens is an offshoot of ProPakistani, and their brief about us mentions their engagement in publishing celebrity gossip news as well. And did I mention, ProPakistani have a history of publishing fake news for the sake of clicks. That being said, ProPakistani should definitely be taken to the RSN for further evaluation. — Saqib (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote. Your comparison to Daily Mail is not in the same realm of what I said. I said it lends credibility, not establishes reliability. And, there are more than Pakistani sources that talk about including this from the BBC which you yourself cited. My point is that a "blog" which is talked about in the media isn't a minor thing. I have a personal blog but it has never been talked about in the media. So again, lends credibility, not reliable. Hence why I said it may be something for the RSN. I would recommend that you as the nominator go to RSN with these and get feedback on the reliability. As far as "Anyone could pay them to publish articles," this is a false statement. We can verify that they allow paid placements, but that doesn't mean that allow anyone to do it or that ALL of the cite is paid. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. There is enough coverage in highly reliable DAWN ([8], [9], [10]), [11]). Youlin (online magazine focused on Pakistani culture-related topics) article was written by Saman Khalid. Category:Online magazines with defunct print editions is the future and there is no requirement for a publication to run print edition to be considered as reilable. On a side note, Saqib's AfDs are unfortunately borderline problematic and are deterring editors from participating. They are quickly losing credibility, and if this deletionist behavior continues—dismissing legitimate sources with terms like WP:ROTM despite clear reliability with proper bylines—admin sanctions/TBAN may soon be necessary. 2A04:4A43:894F:FFA2:9DD1:4FF1:C856:2226 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello IP - the provided coverage from Dawn is clearly ROTM - published in their routine THE WEEK THAT WAS section, which typically provides brief profiles for each and every TV series. Additionally, all four coverage provided are authored by the same author Sadaf Haider and same publication DAWN, and per GNG, multiple references from the same publication and author count as a ONE SINGLE source. So fails GNG. Regarding coverage in Youline, concerns about its reliability have been mentioned by @CNMall41 above therefore, it is advisable not to use it as a source to establish GNG (although it may be used for WP:V purpose). Regarding your remarks about my "borderline problematic" AFDs and suggesting admin sanctions/TBAN against me does imply evasion of block - recently applied to some WP:UPEs sockfarms. It's really unfair to call someone "deletionist" who created thousands of BLPs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again problematic AFD by the same nominator. Clearly WP:Before is not done. Alot of sources are available on google like [12] [13] [14], [15], [16], [17]. All of them are reliable publications which no one can challenge but despite that, @Saqib decided to take this to AfD. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, All of the coverage you provided just mentioned the TV series as WP:Trivial mentions. And except for this coverage in BBC Urdu, none of the coverage provided even has even a byline, so clearly WP:CHURNALISM style coverage and even fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fwiw, the BBC Urdu coverage is based on an interview with the TV series actor so it is not independent of the subject as well. None of this coverage you provided should be suitable for establishing GNG because none is sig/in-depth. GNG requires strong sourcing so merely presenting a collection of news articles does not really help. As usual, you're calling my AFD problematic, but why don't you look at your own AfD stats? You only cast "keep" votes without providing policy-based rationales. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did'nt you indirectly called me problematic here [18] [19] i had done WP:Before initiating that AFD & resultantly that article was deleted. Anyways, we need to focus on this AFD, WP:Trivial mentions & WP:CHURNALISM are an essay not a policy & there is not even a single consensus that these sources comes under WP:NEWSORGINDIA & if there is then please provide evidence. You are rejecting all of the reliable sources just because you consider them unreliable despite The Express Tribune has all the article dedicated to this serial and its actor. Namak Haram conveys a powerful message about the consequences of exploiting others. In BBC its mentioned The nuances of Murid's character in the drama serial 'Namak Haram' make him unique. He is not at all like the butler, housekeeper or servant seen in typical TV dramas. Why would BBC or The Express Tribune includes interviews or provide coverage of the show which according to you is non notable. Are both of them paid coverage? will you please provide evidence one by one as to how these six reliable sources are not valid? Libraa2019 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In assessing source quality, especially for GNG criteria, it's important to apply WP:COMMONSENSE because we do not always have to rely on evidences to prove that coverage is paid, CHURNALISM or fails under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Rather, the key consideration is whether the provided coverage meets the high standards of WP:SIGCOV. If there are still doubts, allow me to analyze each source thoroughly for further clarification. --Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Saqib
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2447954/im-still-learning-imran-ashraf-explores-new-horizons-in-latest-work ~ Express Tribune is an independent RS- but this particular coverage is based on an interview No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail ✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873125-sarah-khan-imran-ashraf-to-steal-spotlight-once-again-with-namak-haram ~ Samaa is an independent source but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1154533/imran-ashrafs-discovery-at-mazaq-raat-sings-namak-haram-ost/ ~ Daily Times is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION ✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/767358-Sarah-Khan-reveals-why-she-chose-%E2%80%98Namak-Haram%E2%80%99 ~ Dunya News is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1129132/imran-ashraf-and-sarah-khans-reunion-in-new-drama-leaves-fans-enthralled/ ~ Daily Times is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/articles/c3g2n49709ro ~ BBC Urdu is an independent RS source but this particular coverage is based on interview Yes Coverage has by-line and the author is a journalist No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or in detail ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1818732 Yes DAWN is an independent RS source Yes Coverage has by-line and the author is a journalist No The source doesn't discuss the subject in detail - Routine coverage in their THE WEEK THAT WAS section, which typically publish brief profiles for each and every TV series ✘ 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}}.
    • Saqib, You forgot to mention, this table is your assumptions or consensus that you judged and rejected all of them. DAWN, a respectable Pakistani newpaper also provide coverage of subject https://www.dawn.com/news/1818732 and WP:Commonsense does'nt tell to assume every reliable source & author as unreliable or objectionable and the subject is not even a BLP but still you are putting so much efforts in its deletion by rejecting all the reliable sources. Furthermore, Its not necessary to respond each comment of opponent party. Please invite other editors or atleast wait for others. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Libraa2019, Regarding DAWN coverage, I've already addressed my concerns above. Clearly WP:ROTM. Its not necessary to respond each comment of opponent party. Same applies to you, I guess. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saqib, depends on history, i only responded your queries and one more thing i would like to mention, WP:ROTM is an essay, not a guideline, you are using this essay to prove your point & adjusting other essays on every reliable source rejection accordingly whereas notability guidelines other than BLP are not that much strict.
        • You told me somewhere that WP:NTV is an essay and not a guideline but throwing your opinions on AFD's on the basis of essays only. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Libraa2019, Notability guidelines other than BLP are not that much strict Are you serious? I'd strongly suggest you to please familiarize yourself with our P&G again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • General principles states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It nowhere mention such things which you mentioned in table. Also you have ignored my other query, You told me somewhere that WP:NTV is an essay and not a guideline but sharing your opinions on AFD's on the basis of essays only. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Libraa2019, You've mentioned multiple times that the topic is notable due to significant coverage. However, you haven't provided any sources or coverage to demonstrate this. I ask again you to please provide specific references that show in-depth and significant coverage to support the notability of the topic, or simply STOP repeating the claim without evidence. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Saqib's SA table, which summarizes the state of the sourcing quite well. Most of the sources are WP:RSNOI upon further inspection. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: This page was created by 59.103.218.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and then heavily edited by several IP ranges such as 223.123.5.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 223.123.10.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 223.123.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 223.123.15.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 154.81.247.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - all of them blocked due to UPE sock farms and all related to our prolific sock master Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335.Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector: Just curious if G5 applies in this case? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. The speedy criteria are all for uncontroversial deletions. As soon as someone opposes deletion in good faith, speedy deletion is no longer an option. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (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:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. — Saqib (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention (WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. — Saqib (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? — Saqib (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing

2024 Lakki Marwat 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)

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWittyNameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (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)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[20] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [21]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [22] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [23] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [24]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [25] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [26] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857

Murree rebellion of 1857 (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)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter

2023 Anantnag encounter (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:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaharkaray

Shivaharkaray (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:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party

Pakistan Falah Party (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 don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opay

Opay (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:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. — Saqib (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::@Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL, What made you say this? — Saqib (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to @CNMall41, @Saqib, @Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggestedParwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report.https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [source1] [source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Central

Fashion Central (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 is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I originally closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion, not knowing until I saw the deleted page that an earlier version on this article had been deleted as a PROD. So, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liz, Despite my reduced activity in nominating pages for deletion since your msg on my tp, there continues to be a lack of participation in Pakistan-related AfD which is realy concerning. Can we draftify the articles at minimum if they're not eligible for soft deletion? — Saqib (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a decline in AFD participation for over a year now. I don't see any editor advocating Draftification so I'd rather see if this relisting encourages mor participation over the coming week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see.. So it means some reforms are the need of the time. — Saqib (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, thanks for the link to this discussion, I didn't know about it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keepDelete. Nominator is correct; the subject is a retail outlet. In general I agree that the article is promotional in tone and needs significant cleanup to become encyclopedic. However, I find WP:SIGCOV in the Express Tribune, plus the Dawn and The News sources already in the article that would clear WP:NCORP. It's a weak keep because it's unclear to me how to validate whether these examples are churnalism, and I don't know enough about Pakistani news outlets to know if they are afflicted with the issues posed by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (RS Noticeboard discussions are mixed but appear to lean on the side of considering them RS.) I could probably be convinced otherwise but this is my take after reviewing the sources and searching for more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dclemens1971, The coverage in The News is based on an interview that only briefly mentions the subject, so I shall label it as a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NORG states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, articles in The Express Tribune and DAWN , published on the same day - 29 September 2023 - to mark the subject's launch and the PROMO tone in both coverages suggests they're based on PR stuff and for PR purpose. WP:SIRS states that coverage based on based on a company's marketing materials shouldn't be acceptable for WP:N. While they're suitable for WP:V purpose, but using them to establish GNG seems inadequate given the rigorous sourcing requirements for establishing WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The magazine has just enough coverage to warrant an article. The nominator hasn't shown that the sources are actually paid for, and the claim that the article's original creators has been banned is false. Cortador (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cortador, But I don't see enough coverage. Please see my assessment above timestamped 20:58, 17 June 2024. WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance! Page logs clearly indicate this article was deleted and re-created multiple times for blatant advertising by SPAs including by now blocked Special:Contributions/Zara-ahmad and Special:Contributions/Nokhaiz Kaunpal. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Saqib's rationale above, none of the references are anything other than regurgitated company PR. Also "Mentions" and "Coverage" are not part of our notability criteria, it is the content that we look at. HighKing++ 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Da Hero

Heer Da Hero (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 much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ([27]) and Dawn ([28]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and edited by 39.34.171.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Avadh990 -- all blocked for UPE sock farming.Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:
Bad Gumaan (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) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (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:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1229987462"