Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan.

Further information

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

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Pakistan[edit]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama clearly fails to meet GNG as I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS besides some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirf Tum (2023 TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this, this and even this is not enough to meet GNG. Point to note, The News which produced the media coverage and Geo TV that aired this TV show are part of the same Jang Media Group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Vocational Training Institute[edit]

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

Clearly PROMO. Fails NCORP as well GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG which require sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abro (tribe)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK:

Though I would share main concern. I suppose it needs deeper collective thought. I do not see any WP:RFCBEFORE to have taken place at Talk:Abro (tribe) or rather better would have been at WT:PAK.

Likelihood of similar articles in 100s?
Category:Sindhi tribes likely to have more than 250 similar stubs. The way articles seem to have formed I can imagine similar would be the case for many in Category:Tribes of Pakistan. Though there is one central article Ethnic groups of Pakistan it's scope does not seem to be tribal specific.

Importance of topic and issue

I am surprised region wise central articles for tribes of Pakistan do not exist but such large number of stubs going no where seem to exist. Baradari (brotherhood) system is influential cultural part of Pakistan and that article too is a stub. Tribal and ethnicity antecedents form clan culture / Baradari (brotherhood) so anthropologically it's important core of Pakistan's demographic history. Though not paid enough attention to on WP.

Idk if any similar articles were listed and deleted up til now but my suggestion is Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK. If no one is ready to work on the drafts then put in my user name space I shall try to promote for expansion in due course. Bookku (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is it really possible to merge all region wise articles? There are many which may not be suitable for a single list-like descriptive article publishing. Jadeja, Kalhora, Soomro, Jokhio, Bhutto, Burfat are some examples. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well developed ones need not be merged. Even for region list may be long but it can be further divided tribal district wise because many tribes are likely to be concentrated in few districts only. May be you can have separate article for extinct tribes. End of the day AfD is would not be right venue to take a detail call but project notice board would be IMO. Bookku (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameja (clan)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sharabeel[edit]

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

So, the BLP claims the subject is a DIREVTOR, but it appears the only thing he's directed is some show called "Twins Apart" The issue I'm seeing is that the coverage about this show is mostly in The News, like this, this and this. And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source, so at most, they count as one source. And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this, but nothing else. Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS. So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR? Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me. This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP?

No offense to the creator of this page, of course but only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all Saqib, i am not a UPE, and don't get personal everytime by calling this term without any evidence as admin has already warned you multiple times. Secondly if it is a case of UPE, then why the article is stub and with that much less data. You can check history i never added material or promotional tone after creation.

As to why i voted delete, I saw his work in a theatre and created his page after checking coverage in RS. Anyways, Did'nt even remembered him since then. Although he still has a coverage on reliable sources but i dont think theatre actor can have a wikipidea article & i am not a UPE who will be affected after deletion. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019 I didn't explicitly call you or anyone a UPE. I simply mentioned that only a UPE might create a BLP for a ROTM director, so no need to stress about it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lack of sigcov of more than one notable work. Happy to change my vote if someone discovers a ref that give a good description of his directing or acting. BTW, the article doesn't even say that he is an actor, so I deleted the assertion from the IB and categories. Is he? If so, the article should say so. And the refs should go immediately after the fact that they are verifying, rather than all lumped together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Mustafa Hassan[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daily Times [1]

Eastern Eye [2]

Daily Times [3]

Daily Pakistan [4]

DAWN News [5]

DAWN News [6]

Daily Times

Dawn Images [7]

The News International [8] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can self choose three best coverage from the ones i mentioned above as they all are best sources and are sufficient to meet GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, It's up to you to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should be good enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of them are best coverage. These sources are covering this actor in-depth. i presented more than what you have asked. Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Pakistan, all of them are reliable and authentic newspapers & These sources are available in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles.. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Libraa2019, Either you're not willing to grasp my point or perhaps simply refuse to WP:LISTEN. Is it a strategy to simply ignore, hoping the AfD will close with no consensus? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chamak Damak[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS, much less sig/in-depth coverage as required by GNG and it clearly fails WP:NTV also. Nominator beat me to AfD'd this one. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP: Notability (television) and WP:GNG. Doesn't provide substantial material to be notable on Google search as well. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashaf Alvi[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing isn't stellar but sufficient to keep the article under general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cortador, So, are you suggesting that we keep this BLP even though we don't have enough coverage meeting WP:SIRS to establish GNG, but because he got some ROTM coverage? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SIRS doesn't apply to people and has no relevance here. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Cortador, Noted. Are you willing to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should meets GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Teenage is not a disqualifier as we don't discriminate somone's abilities based on their age. We are an inclusive encyclopedia, that's why we have plenty of articles on such topics Category:2003 births. This in-depth article in Arab News is written by Saima Shabbir. The book has been reviewd in Dawn ([9]) and The Nation ([10]) by their staff members (when a newspaper writes "staff report" it is enough to prove the reliability). Wieles (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not apply guidelines randomly to the mix. WP:SIRS is for corporations/organizations. Wieles (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wieles, So, it looks like he's only authored this one book, which got some coverage in RS. Is just writing one book enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR? Seems like a pretty ROTM author. And it makes me wonder, if someone just writes a book and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a WP BLP? As for the coverage, DAWN coverage seems pretty ROTM to me. It's not sig/in-depth as required by GNG. And The Nation coverage is based on his interview, which also isn't sig/in-depth or even independent of the subject. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say no. They also don't qualify as reviews of the book, as WP:NAUTHOR states work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get a BLP because he's a TEEN! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habibullah Khan Swati II[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and a quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can help meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 or G11. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO with WP:NON-SIGCOV. Google search also doesn't provide anything substantial.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But google search provides many pictures of him from different pages along with mention of well known Tribal chief and information about his father and grandfather from newspaper and many blogs have mention of his name as a Khan of Garhi Habibullah. Most importantly, He and his father are mentioned tribal Chief on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's website. Hazarewal333 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

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

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, India, Punjab, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless content fork. Mccapra (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station[edit]

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

I'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working Women (TV series)[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With quite a few WP:RS cited in the article. Also, the sources you mentioned in the nomination's rationale do help in meeting WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cocobb8, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here. And the ones I provided in my nomination aiove are not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage. not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered significant coverage. Hope this clarifies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Saqib: Sources like this and this do help in potentially establishing WP:GNG, but I'll leave it to other editors to see what they think as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocobb8 (talk • contribs)

Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam[edit]

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

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

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added multiple references which help establish WP:GNG. Google Search yields significant content about the show (free images, references, critic reviews,cast etc). Sameeerrr (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sameeerrr, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why consider only Three sources when articles contains all WP:RS? After removing 4 Non Reliable sources, it does includes 9 Reliable Sources. In aggregate, it establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sameeerrr (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sameeerrr, For me and others to determine whether the topic meets GNG, I suggest you provide THREE of the best coverage sources here. It's as simple as that. Nobody will comb through those nine citations to gauge whether this subject meets GNG. Please ensure the THREE coverage sources you provide meet WP:SIRS requirements. This is how AfD functions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No matter which references I'll provide, you'll still have some issues with it. As I don't have any specific interest associated with this article, I had to put across my POV which I did and established it with evidences as well (by adding references). Like I said in WP:AfD for Fatima Feng, I'll leave it to other editors and closing admin to figure out. Take care! Sameeerrr (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sameeerrr, You could've at least attempted to present THREE, just THREE sources, but it seems there aren't any that qualify for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All the sources are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG like I said. I wonder if you nominated WP:AfD without evaluating all the sources since you've no idea about the inline citations of the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So, what's holding you back from providing just THREE here? I've taken over 1000+ articles to AfD, so I know what I'm doing. If I were nominating pages without any rationale, I would have been BLOCKED already. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your perspective and my perspective regarding WP:GNG differs already. | This, | this and | this, appears to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well but I won't be shocked if you oppose it. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm definitely going to oppose these coverage. I'm not really surprised either that you came up with not only poor coverage but also poor sources like Daily Pakistan to establish GNG. Daily Pakistan is notorious for publishing sensational news stories. And the Dawn News coverage seems to be from an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. Meanwhile, Daily Times looks like a clear paid placements. One can clearly see the style of churnalism writing. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say NO. Also, you mentioned I have no idea about the inline citations. But the fact is, your grasp of GNG is poor too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This was the reason I wasn't giving you the best "Three" as I already knew you won't be satisfied. It's a consensus, not a WP:Forum, where we're supposed to decide who's right and who's wrong. IMO all the sources are reliable and establish WP:GNG plus Google search yields alot about the serial (free images, links, reviews from critics etc) as "Find Sources" is appearing on this WP:AfD, there can be more possible references to add in it. As per my grasp of WP:GNG, it clearly meets WP:NTV. If my grasp of WP:GNG was poor, I'd not have nominated shows like Bhagyavidhaata, Aurat (TV series) and voted "Delete" for Chamak Damak as I feel they clearly fails WP:NTV, In comparison to these, this one is thousand times better. I don't want to waste my time on this anymore as I said above, Have a good day! Sameeerrr (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr This is not about satisfying Saqib but making a convincing argument to the community. You did do the right thing by starting the WP:RSN#Pakistani Sources discussion to get feedback about some the sources and based my comments and others they are not reliable and/or primary. Also, WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline so does not enjoy community consensus like WP:GNG. Given you are supporting Keep, I echo Saqib's request for WP:THREE as none of the ones you presented at RSN meet the criteria and based on the sources currently in article, I am seeing casting announcements, articles based on largely what those affiliated and other run-of-the-mill/press release material. The first source would not open for me though so I could not asses that one so please double check the url. If it works for you, then the issue is on my side. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Oh, thanks for highlighting that WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline. I must have missed that. So, it means every TV series will need to be assessed based on GNG because we don't have a specific WP:N, right? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a compelling reason another guideline applies (WP:NWEB for example) then GNG is the guideline for TV shows. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure shot! Then ideally there shouldn't be any article related to Pakistani TV series as all of the shows cite sources from these newspapers and sites. Let me help you in cleaning up such articles then. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of articles out there that totally meet WP N , like, you know, Parizaad, Humsafar, Zindagi Gulzar Hai etc, but definitely don't need to have standalone articles on each one of them. This aint directory of Pakistani TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, other than these shows I should start WP:AfD on ideally. I have initiated WP:AfD on a show, will add more tomorrow onwards. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. Primary sources are often fine to use for WP:V like casting announcements, release dates and the like as are secondary reliable sources that do not meet the GNG WP:SIGCOV criteria to support other content. However, at least two sources meeting the four GNG criteria are needed for notability. That is generally the standard for most Wikipedia articles regardless of the topic (exceptions do apply such as WP:NPROF, WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPOL). S0091 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan Nagar[edit]

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

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

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Feng[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS. This page only cites non-RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the basis of following observations;

1. Reference 6 and 7 are potential WP:Reliable Sources with WP:SIGCOV about the show.

2. In addition to above, upon Google search of the title in the local language, I found | BBC news, DAWN and Aaj News references, establishing WP: Notability along with WP:SIGCOV, ideally should be incorporated as the references of the article.

3. On Analytically comparison of article with other television shows which I have initiated a WP:AfD on (Bhagyavidhaata and others), appears to be in line with WP: TVSERIES.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameeerrr, The coverage in The News relying on interview, isn't suitable for establishing GNG, and People Magazine isn't considered a RS. Similarly, coverage in Urdu language outlets like BBC Urdu and DAWN News, also interview-based, isn't adequate for establishing GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIRS either. While these coverage can be used for WP:V, they fall short of meeting GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (television) sets out references to be primarily WP:Reliable and Independent along with significant coverage.

Sources mentioned above are WP:Reliable enough to cover the subject and are WP:Independent of the matter.
In WP:GNG, it's clearly stated that, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Sources linked related to BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News aren't merely trivial mentions. They are interviews based on main character and cast member of the show apparently covering the show. Also The News International is a WP:RS where as People Magazine is a weak WP:RS.

All in all, it does establish WP:GNG which is primary criteria as per WP:Notability (television) as per my evaluation, yours can differ. I'll leave it to the other editors to decide the outcome. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GNG, coverage should be significant and independent of the subject. How does interview-based coverage qualify as independent of the subject? I reiterate that such coverage can be utilized for WP:V but not to establish GNG. My concern isn't about the reliability of sources, but rather the type of coverage. Such coverage often falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as paid placements are common in India as well in Pakistan. Thus, it's advisable to avoid relying on such coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News, The News International falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Sameeerrr (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm NOT saying these sources themselves aren't unreliable, but the coverage they provide has two issues. Firstly, the coverage is based on interviews, which isn't sufficient to meet GNG . Secondly, there's still the issue of paid placements, as outlets like DAWN and The News fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conclusive evidence as to supplement your statement regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA in this case. Hence, it's not appropriate to tag them as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also I believe the sources you removed, | (this and | this) are WP:RS, merely as per your determination you can't constitute WP:RS in the absence of explicit reliable sources list to assess the reliability mentioned sources. Taking into consideration External Links section, and the mentioned references, article clearly establishes WP:GNG along with WP:SIGCOV.

I would rather not reply anymore cause I've other matters to look into as well. I hope closing admin and other editors will take into consideration the points I've raised over this. Adios! Sameeerrr (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameeerrr, As @CNMall41: noted here: WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. See you around! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources provided seem to be ~~WP:FAKEREF~~ WP:SPAM. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Allan Nonymous, Not really WP:FAKEREF, but WP:SPAM. Though I've removed all now. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daurr[edit]

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

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

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything substantial on Google search. Sources listed are unreliable majorly.Sameeerrr (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22 Qadam[edit]

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

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

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain[edit]

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

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

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

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

We Are One (global collaboration song)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [11] and this from the UN [12]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same song? [13], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [14], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is biased and running some personal vendetta. Hence, the page should be kept. I'm more than welcome to make any changes as deemed necessary. Aanuarif (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,

The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot see how the sources in the article meet WP:NCORP. I agree with the nominator that this has strong whiffs of UPE about it. Can anyone wishing to advocate for keeping the article please share the best three links that they believe have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Daniel (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with nom. Article style is highly promotional to make it look notable when it's actually not. Haruka Amaranth 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qudsia Ali[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet the NACTOR. Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point.

The Express Tribune. [15]

Daily Times. [16]

Daily Times. [17]

BBC News. [18]

DAWN [19]

The Express Tribune [20]

Daily Jang [21]

Dawn Images [22]

The Nation [23]

Daily Pakistan [24]

Dawn Images [25] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Let's decide first whether we'll assess this BLP based on NACTOR or GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, That reply didn't quite answer my question. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marleeashton, But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation, DAWN, Daily Times, Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources.

The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [26]
Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [27]
BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [28]
DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [29]

And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi. However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did, the Short film XXL, themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [30] or positively like these [31] [32] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Afzal Khan[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its delete or keep. The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, They nominated Abdullah Seja, added notability tag to Qudsia Ali, Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [33], the tag was removed by another senior editor [34] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [35]. These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha, see Talk:Abu Aleeha. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Seja[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable producer who has produced more than 100 drama serials. Easily passes producer criteria of wikipidea. Few of his work are listed with reliable source proving his production for that project.

Baddua [36]
Ijazat [37]
Rukhsati [38]
Thora Jee Le (Feature Film) [39]
Sukoon [40]
Angna [41]
Bay Dardi [42]
Hum Na Thay Be Mehar [43]
Ghisi Piti Mohabbat [44] [45]
Noor ul Ain [46] Libraa2019 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, All these articles you mentioned (except Noor ul Ain) were created by blocked and unblocked UPEs. I doubt they meet the WP:N - But I'll need to examine each and every drama/TV show they've produced to determine if they meet the significance requirement as outlined in WP:PRODUCER. You mentioned they produced 100+ shows, but you only provided around 10. Where are the rest? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Including Noor ul Ain because it was not created by L293D (talk · contribs) as I thought initially. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I conducted a quick Google search to find coverage about these films sand TV dramas you mentioned, but I couldn't find significant / in-depth coverage about them. I just found some ROTM coverage and this indicates that these films/dramas may not be significant work. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:PRODUCER or WP:DIRECTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note: SPI filed—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        And i have provided rationale to prove my point at SPI Libraa2019 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator is unable to understand any rationale and nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleeze Nasser[edit]

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

I don't see her meeting WP:ACTOR criteria, as I am unable to verify major roles in films which require as required per WP:ACTOR. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. AUTOBIO by Aleeze nasser (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear case of an unsourced bio. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a WP:NACTOR. Plus not much available on Google search as well.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Komail Anam[edit]

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

I don't see her meeting WP:SINGER or WP:ACTOR criteria, as I am unable to verify major roles in TV shows which require as required per WP:ACTOR. @MPGuy2824: redirected it, but it was restored by a SPA. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out about the article for Komail Anam. I understand your concerns about meeting the notability criteria for singers and actors (WP:SINGER & WP:ACTOR).

I've included sources in the article that demonstrate Komail Anams's involvement in major and side roles for notable TV shows.

Here are some suggestions:

- Consider the relevancy and credibility of the sources I've provided.

- You can also check the Wikipedia pages of the specific TV shows mentioned in the credits to verify their notability.

While WP:GNG might not be fully met at this point, the provided sources do establish involvement in established productions.

I do want to address the feeling of being bullied. Wikipedia relies on open discussion and collaboration, but it should always be done respectfully.

Would you be open to discussing this further and exploring ways to improve the article to meet notability criteria? We can work together to find a solution that ensures accuracy and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks Thehasanansari (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his family, like before. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Nonymous, Please check BLP page history. I am fine with redirection as long the page is PROTECTED. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still think a redirect is good, but salt this page for creation, given the edit warring by Thehasanansari. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Nonymous, Sure - i can withdraw this if its SALTED. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that notability and verifiable sources are key factors.

While the actor I'm interested in may be young and their career is still growing, they've already achieved some success:

- Participated in 6 dramas with notable roles

- Has a singing career

Their portfolio is demonstrably expanding, and they're gaining recognition.

I understand this might not meet the strictest criteria, but I'm hoping to understand if there's still a chance for a Wikipedia page in their case.

Furthermore, I'd like to clarify a point. Creating a "placeholder" page (sometimes referred to as "salting") for this actor wouldn't be helpful. They are not an unknown personality, and Wikipedia is a public platform intended to document notable individuals.

Additionally, redirecting to their father's page wouldn't be appropriate either. This actor has established their own identity and career achievements.

Thanks for your time and clarification. 2400:ADC1:42F:1400:C42C:B6:D538:5171 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed.—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to show that WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG have been met. Fair amount of unsourced promotional drek before pruning, afterwards this is a basic start article. Web searches didn't show any useful sources to add that would help for notability. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also be okay with a redirect per Allan Nonymous's suggestion, might need to consider at least some semi-protection if not more if the Nauman335 sockfarm is looking here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before is recommended as doesn't meet WP:NSINGER. Even as actor does not appears in any significant role.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Farhan Ahmed Malhi[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last year, CNMall41 (talk · contribs) nominated this BLP for deletion but it was kept due to lack of consensus. The closing admin mentioned there's no prejudice to an immediate re-nomination. I tagged it last month for being promotional but now I've realized it also has issues with meeting WP:N. It clearly fails WP:GNG and I don't see how we can pass it based on WP:SNG. Also the creator Aanuarif (talk · contribs) should disclose if there's UPE involved because if you look at their contributions, it seems very dubious. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep!

Th Aanuarif (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and I don't think that an article about some random businessman should be part of an encyclopedia. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a promotional business article.182.182.29.217 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG created solely to promote the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My source assessment is in the previous AfD discussion. The main point of argument from !Keep votes there was the application of NEWSORGINDIA. Still do not see anything that would show how the subject is notable. The personal attack from creator was also unnecessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable or promotional to make it notable in disguise. Haruka Amaranth 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. So let it be reviewed by the community.

And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass ~~GNG~~ notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of ethnolinguistic regions of South Asia[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:NPOV. Completely unnecessary generalisations about which regions supposedly "belong" to which "ethnic groups" just because their native languages are widely spoken there. This is ethnic nationalist nonsense without any encyclopedic value. All the relevant information has been gathered much better in articles such as Ethnic groups in South Asia, Languages of South Asia, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Geography, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and good case made by NLeeuw. Poor sources, editorial bias and problem with verification. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I have to emphasize once more that a list or article that relies on a single source, or no sources, is essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization[edit]

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

I don't see this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:

Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.

Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.

... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...

There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chak 15 DNB[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siege of Lahore (1800)[edit]

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

Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Police, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence. Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD. AA (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Rahim Khan[edit]

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

At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Wikipedia:Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:

"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:

trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia

3 cases are on wiki

being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)

NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases

service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.

Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge

service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).

Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court

service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).

Attorney General office Pakistan

Also partially meets

teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"

The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years. Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Retinscn20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.

Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here ^[1] here ^[2] here ^[3]. And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ashar Asghar[edit]

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

on the face of it, it appear that the subject has directed some dramas, but those dramas themselves don't appear to be WP:N, which suggests that this person fails to meet WP:DIRECTOR. The reference cited in this BLP are either unreliable or don't mention the subject at all, contradicting what the SPA Ritajon (talk · contribs) claimed when they created this BLP. A quick Google search also yields not much, indicating a failure to meet the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MUN TV[edit]

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

The coverage is not in depth or significance, failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital[edit]

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

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, delete.
Crosji (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Miyanji[edit]

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

She doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG beause the press coverage she received in WP:RS lacks significance or depth which does not satisfy WP:N. N-Peace Award alone may not confer WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Cultural Complex And Museum[edit]

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

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Mashwani[edit]

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

The subject evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romaisa Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, etc. Merely being in a film or TV series does not make one Inherently notable. Created by a sockpuppet —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the citations to articles focused on Khan published through nation-wide Pakistani news outlets that are currently cited in the article, I also saw coverage and analysis of her influence in an article from the European Journal of Management and Business Economics (DOI:10.1108/EJMBE-08-2022-0270). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's evaluate each and every reference cited in the BLP.
- Daily Pakistan WP:PROMO/tabloid journalism, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- ARY News The "web desk" byline doesn't meet reliability criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- 24 News HD Such sensational interviews aren't sufficient for establishing WP:N.
- Al Jazeera Acceptable source, but this source alone doesn't establish WP:N, No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Urdu Point Not a WP:RS according to criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- Oyeyeah - Clearly unreliable and unacceptable source
- The Nation Acceptable source but it only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Mag The Weekly Questionable source but also only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Daily Pakistan Only verifies role, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- Dawn Images WP:RS but only confirms receipt of a non-notable award
—Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sachal Afzal[edit]

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sachal was a well known model before starting his acting career. The sources Express Tribune and The news International have written about his modeling career and also his background too.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In these sources both are news international mentions his career and education. His significant roles are in dramas Mannat Murad, Sara Sajeeda, Bakhtawar, Adawat and Zulm.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC))^[1]^[2][reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "More than meets the eye". The News International.
^ "Sachal Afzal". The News International.

These paid interviews = primary sources. Do you have any substantial evidence ? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a paid interviews. The News International newspapers has interviewed many other actors and models too and it writes every important news. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. The News International is a major English newspaper in Pakistan.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who contributed to this page, how can we substantiate if these itws were "staged" or not, and if we can't, shouldn't we assume that the default position is that they aren't ? Also he's one of the leading male models of the country and one of the rising actors as well (secondary roles in the leading productions of the country), he has awards and nominations in both fields, shouldn't that be enough to assert his "credibility" ? Metamentalist (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its essential to apply WP:COMMONSENSE when assessing coverage to asses its credibility. In this instance, the coverage seems to align more with WP:NEWSORGINDIA and exhibits characteristics of WP:CHURNALISM-style reporting.Your statement seems to suggest WP:ILIKEIT. To substantiate your stance, you'd need to provide evidence demonstrates the subject meets WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The News International" is a credible newspaper of the country, not some "yellow journalism" directed towards rumors about celebrities or something, so I was submitting the proposition that the first assumption should be positive and not negative, and my second point is that even if you do admit the source are refutable the man is still one of the best known male models in the country as well young actors (as substantiated by awards and nominations, also sourced). Metamentalist (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that The News itself isn't reliable, but rather this specific piece which doesn't quite cut it to meet WP:RS and establish subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that info is confirmed by another source (Express Tribune, also "credible") & also does that impact the fact that the WP:N is met by the fact that he's one of the most awarded male models of the country + an actor in some of the country's most watched dramas produced by the best known media houses ? Metamentalist (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeauSuzanne and Metamentalist The subject clearly fails to meet the GNG, and neither of you has been able to provide solid evidence thus far. When examining this through the lens of WP:NACTOR, a Google search also hasn't yielded anything substantial to prove that the dramas/films in which he acted are significant works. Therefore, the subject fails to meet the NACTOR - even if he played lead roles in them, BUT I haven't seen verification of that either. It appears he only did MINOR roles, and I can say this with certainty. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are interviews, [47]. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Khan (actor)[edit]

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a notable actor. And how he started his career and everything can be found in his interviews with The News Internatioanl and daily times.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His notable roles in drama Dil-e-Veran, Amrit Aur Maya, Soteli Mamta, Juda Hue Kuch Iss Tarhan, Soya Mera Naseeb and Hina Ki Khushboo. These sources have mentioned his acting career and education.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Hasan Khan". The News International.
^ "Hasan Khan — the superstar of tomorrow". The News International.
^ "Stunning and brilliant – Hasan Khan". The News International.

These paid interviews = primary sources. Do you have any substantial evidence ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't paid interviews. These newspapers interviews many other actors and models as well and they write about everything. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. Daily Times was run by Politician Salman Taseer until his death. The News International also Daily Times are both English major newspapers in Pakistan.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources (primary source) are used in other articels as well.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are promo interviews, fail WP:IS, and do not demonstrate notability . BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan[edit]

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [48], [49], [50]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight." The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The "certain kinds of articles" apply and the "certain publications" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on general notability. The AfD appears to be partially motivated by some personal gripe Saqib has with the article's original creator. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any issues with the person who created the page. But could you please share some coverage that fits WP:GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kehkashan Awan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Although this topic survived a previous AfD but the discussion was compromised by sock puppets and IPs. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was a well known actress and model in 1980s and before acting she was a model but she is best known for her role as Anji in drama Dhoop Kinaray which is considered now a classic cult.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib unless something is confirmed, best not to mention it. One CU has already confirmed there is no technical evidence they are using multiple accounts. However, the CU did confirm heavy WP:LOUT activity so it might be fair to mention that. S0091 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, I did wrote "suspected," not confirmed. Even if we can't confirm they're socks, one can say for sure they're UPEs. But your point taken. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you are casting aspersions here and you have been attacking this editor on many different discussions. This is verging on blockable behavior. Content creators have the right to weigh in on AFD discussion. Focus on the arguments and sources, not personalities. Or you could be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are mostly about other people where Awan is only mentioned or are interviews. Jang is the only source that has coverage about her and all it says is people found her Twitter account and she's now married. Looking at the sources in the Dhoop Kinare article, none mention her outside of listing her as a cast member so it does not appear her role was significant. S0091 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE are name mentions, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak Malik[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BLP previously included references, but they seem to have been deleted. However, I agree that the subject may not meet the WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any good sources for this individual. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [e]ntirely unsourced claim in the OP seems to have been made based on a version of the article that existed after it had been blanked by an IP. There do seem to be sources, and I am presuming good faith about the coverage in sources written in a language I am not able to read (as notability can be provided via non-English sources). I have also found coverage of Malik in the Journal of Media Studies and the Journal of Economics. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. One of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism. Media houses in Pakistan hardly cover the launch of a new competitor but in this case we have some organic coverage: Dawn ([51], [52], [53], [54]), Pakistan Today ([55]). It is owned a listed-company (WP:LISTED) so there are a lot of research reports like this. One of the most watched channel in Pakistan per TRPs data ([56]). 2A01:4B00:87FF:FC00:4D86:AF87:BFAF:D55A (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote although I find it highly suspicious. Regardless, you have just proven why this does not meet notability guidelines. Every single reference you provided falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is NOT considered reliable. There is also no inherent notability for it being "one of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism." Your arguments are more of WP:ILIKEIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, retain it for now; while this article lacks references, it's imperative to enhance it. Considering it's from a prominent news channel, deletion seems unwarranted.

Crosji (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the policy based reason to keep the page? Keeping it because it is from a "prominent news channel" would be fine assuming the sources are there to support the assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sukaina Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable actress and she started working as child actress in supporting roles. Now she does lead roles as well and she does modeling as well recently she is working drama Sultanat on Hum TV.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC))^[1][reply]

References

^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

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

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

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

This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anumta is best know for her role Huma in Suno Chanda 1 and Suno Chanda 2. She did supporting roles as well and has also done major roles in dramas. This source it is mentioned when she started her career and her dramas.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC))^[1][reply]

References

^ "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.

Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles? I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Enough, Saqib. More of this casting aspersions will result in a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 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) 05:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are name mentions, promo, interviews, nothing meeting WP:SIRS, BEFORE found similar, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well known actress. She started working in 1990 and she has portrayed leading roles in dramas now she does supporting roles as well sometimes lead roles.^[1](BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR clearly. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has appeared in numerous notable dramas. I remember her in leading PTV dramas roles. She was a model as well.(2400:ADCC:160:1F00:C166:DEA8:28EC:A094 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not enough! you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- meets WP:NACTOR, rationale provided for deletion is weak.182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is akin to WP:JUSTAPOLICY —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources, and to allow for further discussion within this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. Article has a lot of refspam, but none or it meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musharraf Ali Farooqi[edit]

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

This appears to be a clear case of WP:AUTOBIO. None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary (talk · contribs) Hammad.anwar (talk · contribs) Sibyl12drip (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for WP:Author states "Such a person is notable if ... The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Nothing in that criteria states that the work itself must be represented on Wikipedia. Also, WP:GNG are the general notability guidelines while the guidelines for creative professionals give additional guidance. If a subject meets any of the criteria within any of the notability guidelines, they are assumed to be notable. SouthernNights (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy[edit]

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality. samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [57]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 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) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Samee at User talk:Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [58] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [59]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [60] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 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) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search did not show result on a Mutta tribe. I did find a Google book that talks about Muttadari System of Bhagatha tribe but that is different than the tribe on the page. Some more sources about Muttas in Australia. I did not find any source that would give an option to draftify the page for improvement. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Files for deletion[edit]

Category discussion debates[edit]

Template discussion debates[edit]

Redirects for deletion[edit]

MfD discussion debates[edit]

Other deletion discussions[edit]

[1] ttps://www.jantakareporter.com/entertainment/for-the-sake-of-peace-between-our-two-countries-may-your-channel-die-a-quick-death-pakistani-lawyer-turns-down-arnab-goswamis-invitation/292457/

[2] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20231105140841/https://minutemirror.com.pk/secretary-summoned-over-lg-officials-term-completion-plea/

[3] ttps://tribune.com.pk/story/819315/saving-the-turf-the-controversy-of-the-21st-amendment here

[4] "More than meets the eye". The News International.

[5] "Sachal Afzal". The News International.

[6] "Hasan Khan". The News International.

[7] "Hasan Khan — the superstar of tomorrow". The News International.

[8] "Stunning and brilliant – Hasan Khan". The News International.

[9] "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

[10] "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.

[11] "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[1]