Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura

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

Fails WP:GNG Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very obviously satisfies notability as per the depth of results shown here [1]. Keep per WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: All the works of Muhammad Iqbal are notable (and you will pretty much know the reason if you read his articles).. it's a waste of time nominating them. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search does not fulfill the requirements of GNG, how many of those sources discuss this in-depth? First few sources in that GB search[2] Wikipedia copy & paste. [3] Just a mention of the name of the poem. [4] Quotes a section of the poem, but gives no details at all. And a correct search[5] returns only eight hits. This poem is not notable at all. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable poem which has received significant coverage in a number of sources. Some of the sources are: 1, 2, 3. (Page40-41), 4. (Page 24), 5. (Page 269), 6. (Page 52- ), 7. (Page 148), 8. (Page 159). There are many more sources available online. I have added this article to my to do list and will improve it with these sources soon. --SMS ^Talk 22:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was nominated for AfD less than a year ago in which the overwhelming consensus was keep. Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very obviously notable as outlined above. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (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.