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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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 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.

Purge page cache

watch

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

Exercise Indus Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see how this meets NEVENTCRITERIA. There are several issues. I don’t see evidence of WP:LASTING impact, or even WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP is not a newspaper. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nayatel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article mostly relies on sources tied to the organization, GENREL sources and even sources thats falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Internet Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article also seems pretty promotional and mostly relies on sources tied to the organization or its subsidiaries, like stormfiber.com, which is a brand of this company. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Business Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate advertisements. This is related to Ghias Khan paid-for-spam. IPO of this company didn't happen so WP:LISTED is not applicable. Other than that there are routine press releases or brief coverage in WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. DeploreJames (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @DeploreJames, Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Ghias Ali BLP is paid-for-spam or are these just allegations? Regardless, the focus should be on removing promotional content per WP:ATD rather than seeking deletion. Also, you should notify the page creator @Crosji: on their tp about this AFD. PS. declare your master sock account, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it @Saqib Inbox, plays a significant role in Pakistan's IT sector. However, I've noticed that the article has been gradually shortened over the past few weeks. While changes are healthy, it's clear that anonymous users have removed entire sections, and after suggesting AFD, sourced content has been removed to further weaken it. Given the company's recent media presence (here, here, here and here), I recommend updating the article and ensuring its preservation. Insofar, I would suggest to keep it. @DeploreJames is your account only focusing on Pakistan to delete articles?

  Crosji (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghias Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

CEO doing his job, nothing significant done by him in his corporate career. References are basically primary references (i.e. interview) or mentions in reliable references. Pakistan & Gulf Economist article is the best reference about him but an archived version reveals that it is an interview as well ([1]). Bloomberg.com database entries are not useful for notability purposes. Clearly no way near meeting WP:GNG. DeploreJames (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Engro Corporation: as the subject is known for being the CEO of Engro, one of Pakistan's largest corporations. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, there are numerous articles on corporate leaders from all over who have held key positions and become part of public discourse, like Ghias Khan from Pakistan. He has interacted with public figures, made significant contributions to the industry, and recently moved on after many years. To test notability you just needed to read/watch news the lkast few years. It's legitimate to have such an article, and the fact that it has garnered at least 50K views indicates a certain level of public interest, therefore it should not be deleted but updated. Crosji (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosji, As the creator of this BLP, I’d love to see it rescued. However, I, lack the time or perhaps the interest, to dig into sources and defend this BLP, so I voted for a redirect. But anyway please remember to avoid WP:ATA (in this case WP:POPULARPAGE) when casting votes in AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Nigar Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT. Routine news event with no indication this event has enduring historical significance, or a significant lasting effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it has no encyclopedic value. It is a common occurrence and this particular case did not force any policy or social change. Though the event attracted wide coverage, it was not sustained. At best, if there is relevant article related to this topic it should be merged with it. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan: Highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Muslim League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is confusing because it is about a group of political parties under same or similar name. Its infobox says it was established by Ayub Khan in 1962. But Khan didn’t establish Pakistan Muslim League. He established Convention Muslim League. Pakistan Muslim League is the name of another political party existed from 1947 to 1958. By naming this Pakistan Muslim League, we are creating confusion because the article is about a group of political parties. In that sense, there is no need for the existance of this article. we can merge it into related articles, or we can merge it to List of Muslim League breakaway groups because this article, talks about parties under same/similar name, actually came from Pakistan Muslim League and we already have an article about it (Muslim League (1947–1958)). This article has only three sources. And the page gives us an idea that it is an single political party. It looks like WP:OR and it would be best to merge it into Muslim League (1947–1958) or List of Muslim League breakaway groups or redirect it to Muslim League. Mehedi Abedin 08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Mehedi Abedin 08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems like this is a content dispute issue. Have you considered using WP:ATD, as suggested here? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a content dispute issue. But I considered other options. However, looks like there is few to merge because List of Muslim League breakaway groups and other Muslim League related articles already covered all these information of the article. Also the article reflects WP:OR as it wrongly represents the party. That's why I directly nominated it for deletion discussion. Mehedi Abedin 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let me simplify it for you. After dissolution of Muslim League in 1958, Ayub Khan established Pakistan Muslim League in 1962. It further breakaway into two factions afterwards. Convention Muslim League was a breakaway faction of PML which supported Ayub Khan while another faction was Council Muslim League which supported Fatima Jinnah in 1965 Pakistani presidential election. Muneebll (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Muneebll Even in that sense Ayub's PML and Zia's PML are not same. But that article has Ayub and Zia's PML content, which results WP:OR. Ayub's PML was divided into two factions soon, did not joined any general election, which is not notable as a article in Wikipedia and can be merged into Convention. That PML did not survive for even a year. Mehedi Abedin 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Muneebll.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College, Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable educational institution. No independent, RS could be found that contain significant coverage of it. I am only able to find routine coverage with many passing mentions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sujan Singh (contractor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO; all sources that provide WP:SIGCOV are authored by family members of the subject. (The article was also created by an apparent COI editor, now blocked, with a track record of creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles about their family members.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Fails WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, Delhi, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Good news and books coverage.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @امین اکبر: None of the sources in the article are "news," and none of the books are independent of the subject (they are written by his family members). Can you please share which sources you consider to be WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent and reliable sources? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalakot prison escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to fail WP:NEVENTS due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE coverage and a lack of WP:LASTING impact. The coverage seems routine and since WP is not a newspaper, we shouldn't create articles on every event just because it has been reported in WP:109PAPERS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does the prison itself have any notability? I don't dispute this fails NEVENT, but I am curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominations, so far no Independent coverage by reliable sources has found it also lack in WP:NNEWS. 2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean there is plenty of reliable coverage. Lasting coverage is the question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PARAKANYAA, Agree, there is coverage in Independent RS; I’m not denying that. RE your question about whether the prison itself is notable, it’s not because we don’t have an article on it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saqib Well, we don't have a lot of articles on things that would qualify under our GNG. Not saying this is one of them, but I was curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'm not contesting the delete vote, just that specific argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PARAKANYAA, If anyone wants to rename the article to Rawalakot Prison, I have no objection. This way, we can retain the information in this article. However, I haven’t checked yet if this prison itself meets the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this article should be deleted rather it should be merged along with other small prison breaks like Dera Ismail Prison attack, Bannu prison break(does not have an article yet) into a single article "Prison Breaks in Pakistan". Tahir Pro (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I updated the article to include additional relevant information and believe it should be kept. The WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING are not fully applicable, as the event’s significance is evident and continues to receive coverage. AJK is one of the most peaceful regions, and such events rarely happen here, which adds to the notability of the incident. Furthermore, escapes, including those charged with terrorism and death row prisoners, make this remarkable and lasting impact of this event. — Ainty Painty (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NNI News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is one of many news agencies in Pakistan, but it doesn't seem to meet the GNG or even NORG which passes WP:SIRS. Most of coverage is routine and focused on the agency's own people. For example, this which says A photographer of NNI news agency ... also lost their lives in the same incident. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing notable and no sources provided for establishing the general or organizational notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 12:41, 8 August 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 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not every hoax requires its own standalone WP page. To qualify, it must meet the NEVENT, which states that the events including hoaxes should have WP:PERSISTENCE / significant coverage and demonstrate lasting significance or impact, which is not the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to List of hoaxes.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The hoax pretty much spread like wildfire, and has PERSISTENTLY BEEN reported in many articles, including reputable ones like Dawn.

Here are some sources that falsely report this rumour:

Firstpost (which you argued for its reliability once) - https://www.firstpost.com/world/parents-are-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-but-why-12516002.html/amp

Associated News International - https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistani-parents-lock-daughters-graves-to-avoid-rape20230429124712

Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/web-stories/why-are-people-locking-up-womens-graves-in-pakistan/photostory/99838682.cms

News sources that report the case being debunked and false:

The Express Tribune - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2414436/indian-media-spreads-fake-padlocked-grave-image-to-discredit-pakistan?amp=1

Dawn- https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1750493

NDTV- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/story-on-pictures-of-padlock-in-pakistan-incorrect-grave-from-hyderabad-3990281/amp/1

WION- https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-are-parents-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-587324/amp

ALT News- https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-viral-photo-of-grave-with-iron-grille-is-from-hyderabad-not-pakistan/

India TV News- https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/the-truth-behind-graveyard-with-padlock-story-pakistan-hyderabad-video-photos-waris-pathan-latest-updates-2023-05-01-868273 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualVagabond, OK but you're still missing the point. As mentioned earlier, this coverage does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:WIDESPREAD states Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been picked up by reputable sources, so I’d say it pretty much is notable. Not to mention that this topic is brought up quite a bit, even warranting an article that was made about it only a few weeks ago:

https://www.boomlive.in/amp/fast-check/viral-picture-grave-locked-pakistan-parents-necrophilia-daughter-claim-online-25859 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, it's a fact check, largely repeating what everyone else has posted a year ago. It's barely half a page, with more photo than text. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect to Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan (18:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)): per nom. This event fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NSUSTAINED. Random fact-check websites are not significant coverage of this event, and most of the sources here are either unreliable or questionable per CiteHighlighter. Do not merge to List of hoaxes because the scope of that list is notable entries (i.e., each entry links to a notable event). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of hoaxes and Fake news in India. Muneebll (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  List of hoaxes appears to require a blue link for each entry, so that wouldn't work. There's already a due summary of the hoax in Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can only find coverage from May and August a year ago, then nothing since. It has no persistence in media, so doesn't really meet notability as explained. Could be a brief mention in an article about news hoaxes or something, but not notable enough for its own article. [2] pretty well explains it, and that was over a year ago. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ameen's argument has a substance. We do have separate articles to avoid the article getting too long. If we delete this article, all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Various entries in the article have their own article as well making the content encyclopedic. Muneebll (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Muneebll, ...all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Not really. Various entries in the article have their own article... I don't see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except for documentaries, most does. Documentaries also have sources given. In filmography sections, not every entry has article but we still mention them because the main subject is notable. Regardless of your superficial personal view, content of this article being encyclopedic has to be on Wikipedia, either in this article or main article. Muneebll (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Muneebll, Regardless of your superficial view WP:ADHOM. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really, I don't see that...isn't a proper response either. WP:PPOV Muneebll (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        @Saqib: are you suggesting that the content in this page be merged selectively into the main one? That seems to be the most logical outcome. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        CherryPie94, Sure, why not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list meets the "information" criterion of WP:LISTPURPOSE, with verifiable information about a specific aspect of the activity of the subject, and it's not appropriate for a merge because it would make the parent article significantly longer and less focused. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NOTDIR (the contents are well-organized, (mostly) verified and include contextual info) so that element of the nomination doesn't apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dclemens1971, WP:LISTPURPOSE Why are you referencing WP:MOS? You should cite a notability related policy or guideline. it's not appropriate for a merge Not all items on this list will be merged; only specific parts will be. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable Do you have any notability related policies or guidelines that confirm this? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NLIST cites LISTPURPOSE, so it is connected to a notability guideline and appropriate to cite here. As for the notability of individual list entries, see the second criterion under WP:CSC; there can be valid informational purposes for lists whose individual entries are not notable and I think that’s the case here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction. We can always expand it back out if anyone finds some sigcov. No one's managed it in 20 years, so. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]