Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Akram Shaheed Memorial

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 redirect to Muhammad Akram. Content can be merged from history. ansh 666 03:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major Akram Shaheed Memorial

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

Nothing significant other than namechecks. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The monument is adequately covered in the article about the man.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Certainly this is a notable park in Jhelum and seems to me to be of regional significance. Unfortunately there is not much coverage of the park in reliable sources. There is enough to know it exists, satisfying WP:V for instance. I don't have any WP:NOR or WP:NPOV concerns with the brief article as it is currently written. I agree that there isn't enough coverage for the subject to be clearly notable, but given the size and prominent location of the park, I believe that is due to the lack of Urdu language sources. Note that the article is already currently also mentioned at the page for Jhelum. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So right way is to redirect when we don't have sources to support stand-alone article. Störm (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem differing in opinion with you on this, but to me the point is that I believe the subject of the article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. In particular, I believe that multiple in-depth sources exist, I simply don't have access to them. Notability (aka WP:42) gives us the presumption of suitability for inclusion if multiple sources were presented, which we don't have in this case. But I believe there is suitability without presumption. If one doesn't believe the subject is suitable because: they disagree that the sources exist, they have a different opinion of suitability that does not apply to relatively large city parks in mid-sized cities in Pakistan, they believe in strict necessity of multiple in-depth sources, or for whatever other reason, they might go ahead and !vote delete. I think deletion would be a mediocre outcome. An alternative you suggest is WP:REDIRECT, in particular from WP:RPURPOSE: redirect is appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." If you believe that a park or a statue is a subtopic of an individual or of a city, then a redirect is appropriate. I think redirection would be an ok outcome. I think keeping would be a fair outcome, with WP:HEY much preferred, but I've made an effort to find sources online under the English title, the Urdu (میجر محمد اکرم میموریل) or the Punjabi (میجر محمد اکرم دی یادگار) and have found none except a few English sources very similar to what I linked to above, and none in-depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough independent and reliable coverage to be found. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Jhelum and Muhammad Akram would be a generous solution. We know almost nothing about the park and monument (we don't even know what Shandar Chowk is, the thing the park is near) and any mention online appears to be copied word-for-word from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muhammad_Akram#Death. If sources suddenly materialise to meet WP:SIGCOV, then the article could be restore. Not independently notable and not suitable for inclusion in the current form. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 16 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.