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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Keep: Populated & legally recognized places presumed to be notable; don't see any reason this should be not legally recognized given the significant number of people who (from the photo) appear to be living in it. Article is mostly original research but contains useful information. If you really want proof it exists this discusses a wildfire happening there. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, possible mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However, Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor BeauSuzanne, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I'm simply pointing out that the credibility of this award isn't strong, so it's not inappropriate to classify it as a minor civilian award. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've stated my position and while I don't need to provide evidence for everything I say, but, if you insist, you can refer to this, this and this, which says In the past, numerous Pakistani TV, film, music and literature personalities have been given these awards, while others struggled to even get nominated. Many complained of the lack of a stringent criterion and claimed favouritism as well.. If you don't want to trust me, that's your choice. However, you should consider trusting these sources and the former senior cabinet minister who have made the same statements as mine, about these civil awards. I prefer not to engage with WP:LOUTSOCK, so I won't argue further. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source claims that Yasmeen Tahir got an award due to personal connections or that she was not awarded as per merit neither they mentioned Sitara-i-Imtiaz is fake/minor. You are throwing fictious sources that does'nt support your claims. 2404:3100:1402:FFDF:1:0:9155:36D0 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Allow me to clarify my remarks. I do not deny that it is one of the highest civilian awards in the country. Perhaps my wording was incorrect. What I intended to say is that it is referred to as minor in the sense that it lacks credibility and I provided sources to support my claims, and the more I research it, the more I find opinions aligning with mine. [Granting civil awards to minions, crooks and fraudsters has eroded the prestige and value of these awards.] That said, it's still an honor to receive such an award, even if its credibility has diminished. However, basing a BLP solely on this award doesn't make sense to me at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can all agree Yasmeen Tahir is not one those crooks or fraudsters. :) That opinion piece is about civil awards in general, of which there are several, with specific focus on higher education and one example regarding the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. Also clearly he agrees the award has prestige and value; otherwise it couldn't be eroded. As I state above I am not saying the award in and of itself establishes notability; only that is not a minor award. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sitara-i-Imtiaz#Recipients of Sitara-e-Imtiaz: I have tried to find at least a couple secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage about her but everything is brief mentions. Within those mentions it is clear to me she did have an impact but it's not enough to establish notability. However, sources could come to light in the future so I at least want to maintain the work that has been done which a redirect will accomplish. I do think the title should changed to Yasmin Tahir, though. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated in mainspace after draftification, so I'm bringing this to AfD. No evidence of notability, very few results pop up in an Internet search. Perhaps editors with knowledge of Pakistani sources can help dig deeper. Broc (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistani films of 1991: it is listed there; sources exist for verification and the cast is notable. This kind of redirect can imv be said to be standard practice/working consensus for films that are judged not sufficiently notable for a standalone page but have received coverage for verification and/or have notable artists in the cast or crew (when the director has no page yet); it allows further development if sources are found later (ATD). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this page shouldn’t be deleted because the film is notable and I provided reliable sources from the Pakistani Film Magazine which is an official website that shows every film made in Pakistani history. I would appreciate it if this page stays the way it is and not be deleted. Thank you😊 Saqib lollywood (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated heregiven the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary.Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([1]), Hindustan Times ([2]), Times of India ([3]), NPR ([4]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([5]), Youlin ([6]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([16]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92Talk01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 presented sources that deal with the topic as a set, so that the list meets the requirement for notability. If the sources, that can be added at any time, are judged to focus only on (a list of) memes and/or the name of the page is considered inaccurate, then rename List of Internet memes in Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I like to repeat that the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the sources IP provided above primarily focus on some memes without mentioning the subject of the article which is Internet phenomena in Pakistan. So how can it be claimed that the list meets the requirement for notability when the coverage does not even discuss the subject? And suggesting it to rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan raises the question of whether such lists are generally permissible? Typically, WP does not host such lists, although every country may have its own memes. This would be like having List of Internet memes in the United States or List of Internet memes in India. Pointless. Right? And sure If we were to pursue this, the list must meet WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE , which requires coverage directly about the list itself, not merely individual memes. This topic clearly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA so let's please avoid WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself too, then. I explained why I think this list does meet WP:NLIST: there are reliable sources discussing the subject as a set. Renaming it is just an adjustment restricting the scope (memes being Internet phenomena). Permissible, yes, very much so, for the reason that it meets the guideline about lists. Feel free to create lists of Internet memes in other countries if you have the time and interest and you can find sources. It is certainly not pointless, no, since you're asking me. The rest of the guidelines you mention etc. is not exactly necessary if you read my !vote with attention but thank you for your time and effort. Should you consider replying until I agree with your view or for other reasons, I apologise in advance for not making any further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, No, I don't expect you to agree with me. You've your opinion and I've mine, but I reserve the right to counter your arguments, if I see them not aligning with policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. signed, Aafi (talk)09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. signed, Aafi (talk)18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed. WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on WP:ANYBIO goes. signed, Aafi (talk)13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
