Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIK Institute Clock Tower (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology. Consensus was clearly to merge into the parent article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GIK Institute Clock Tower

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

Local tower in the university, clearly not notable. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:COI here please as I can see from nom three years back. If you are from Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, then please don't comment here. Alternate would be to redirect. Störm (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous nom. samee ^talk 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology seems to be the obvious solution. If it's part of the Institute and a symbol of the Institute then why is a separate article (with little if any extra information) warranted? I don't see its purpose. Granted, it is clearly a very tall and noticeable clock tower, but was it built separately for a different reason, or simply to give the Institute a 'presence'? Doesn't seem to be independently notable, in my view. Sionk (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sionk's explanation. Also Storm, students and faculty of the institute have every right to comment on this nomination if they want; we don't block people from commenting on an AfD as long as they advance a good reason for their vote!. If Sionk hadn't been persuasive I might've asked for a speedy keep based on a WP:BADFAITH nomination. Keep cool and nominate neutrally, please. Nate • (chatter) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent article, per Sionk. I'm all for including Urdu and Pashto sources, as suggested by Mar4d in the previous AfD, in order to establish independent notability. But none were added ever since. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent per current lacking sourcing and args above, and can be SPINOUT if needed later. Widefox; talk 11:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.