Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

[edit]

Pakistani cricket team in England in 2026

[edit]
Pakistani cricket team in England in 2026 (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)

Doesn't start for over a year. Sooo obviously too soon. England have two Test series before this one starts. Retarget to 2025–2027 World Test Championship #England v Pakistan where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be delete or redirect. The series is a part WTC 2025-27 Cycle. Keep it as per evidence and sources as enough. England have announced FTP for 2026, and these series is Test (longest format) and it comes under ICC event as mentioned in FTP of ICC. Keep it. Thank you. Goodknowme (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I truly think Joseph has truly put out a great rationale, and I think they were words I was looking for in mine. Seeing if anyone agrees with this rationale. Tagging to see what people think. @Goodknowme @Knitsey @QEnigma @Vestrian24Bio. Changing vote/argument is not compulsory, but I do think this is a great rationale, and one that should be at least looked at. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Zahidi

[edit]
Saadia Zahidi (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 page seems to be of dubious notability, at least on the references it contains. From what I see, the only notable achievements of the subject is writing a book and being featured on BBC's 100 women. Which I don't think presently meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes ~ Very short, no information about Zahidi herself, minimal information about the book. ~ Partial
No Official news site of the university that hosted the event covered in the article. No Spends three sentences and an image caption discussing her. ✘ No
No An opinion piece written by the subject. No ✘ No
No No Simply mentions her once as a panel member, which means she also took part in authoring this source. ✘ No
Yes Yes No A two-sentence review of her book. Not really sigcov of the book, and certainly not sigcov of her. ✘ No
No Written by the subject, and doesn't talk about her at all. No ✘ No
Yes Yes No A single-sentence listing. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Strong Keep as she is a managing director of a notable organization and at least easily meets Wikipedia:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about the book and rewrite accordingly. I don't see any evidence of GNG-worthy sources that are not about the book (the BBC 100-women source definitely doesn't count, and neither does being a managing director of a notable organization). But I think the book may be notable, so if we have an article on that we could redirect to it. As well as the Financial Times review already listed (the full version of which appears to be paywalled so I couldn't evaluate it) I found published reviews at Foreign Affairs, Library Journal, Kirkus, The Cascadia Advocate, The Arab Weekly, and The Globe and Mail (not counting some personal blogs that I don't think count as reliably published). I don't think one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR, even with this many reviews, and some of the reviews are not very long, but even so I think there's enough coverage to make the book notable. And if we have an article about the book, redirects are cheap, so there should be no problem with a redirect from the author's name. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Thanks. The book seems notable. Since AfD is ill-equipped to handle moves and rewrites (closers sometimes refuse to close as such, even when consensus is clear), I've created a stub on the book at Fifty Million Rising and am changing my !vote to redirect to Fifty Million Rising; I suggest you do too. I would prefer if this AfD close with clear consensus that the person is not notable, to make it easier to deal with potential future UPE issues. Toadspike [Talk] 15:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Keep.
I have found sources that could be added to the draft/article to support GNC.
Articles relating to her book where she is also discussed, Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/b06a1324-01b8-11e8-9e12-af73e8db3c71, The National: https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/books/how-50-million-women-are-transforming-the-muslim-world-1.704101 and The Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-fifty-million-rising-explores-how-women-are-transforming-work-force-across-muslim-world/article37814830/. Plus shorter reviews in journals Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2018-04-16/fifty-million-rising-new-generation-working-women-transforming and Library Journal: https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/fifty-million-rising-the-new-generation-of-working-women-revolutionizing-the-muslim-world
She is quoted in articles by The Standard: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/world-economic-forum-north-korea-europe-glasgow-graham-b976007.html, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/world-economic-forum-artificial-intelligence-ukraine-india-mexico-b1131373.html, The Straits Times: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/wef-confident-of-leaders-coming-to-singapore-for-meet-in-august, BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24650912, Sustainability Magazine: https://sustainabilitymag.com/sustainability/global-gender-gap-report-time-to-parity-far-too-long and Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/climate-change-overtakes-pandemics-as-biggest-global-concern-b1990575.html - more on Google News.
She is the subject of an article by Arab News: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1438871/business-economy/1000 (can be used as unrelated to Saudi government); Articles in Spanish, Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.es/archivo/coronavirus-cambiara-trabajo-foro-economico-mundial-643497 and El Economista: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/economia/Quien-es-Saadia-Zahidi-la-directora-gerente-del-WEF-20240121-0057.html'; Article in French, Les Temps (Swiss newspaper): https://www.letemps.ch/carrieres-et-formation/musulmanes-une-generation-travail
If anyone has access to Charter: https://www.charterworks.com/charter-30-saadia-zahidi/ or the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/business/world-economic-forum-shakes-up-senior-leadership-f0ea23b4, there are these articles behind paywalls.
An interview was also reported on in Diplomat Magazine: https://thediplomatmagazine.com/news-activities/world-economic-forum-md-saadia-zahidi-highlights-risks-of-misinformation/ SDGB1217 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iftekhar Rafsan

[edit]
Iftekhar Rafsan (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)

Article about a non-notable youtuber. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the subject may be a well-known media personality in Bangladesh with a sizable YouTube following, having a large number of subscribers or general popularity does not automatically confer notability. Notability must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond routine interviews or brief mentions.The only good cited source is from The Business Standard which itself is a primary-style profile/interview, which, while from a reliable publication, is not enough on its own to establish encyclopedic notability under WP:NBIO or WP:CREATOR. At present, the article lacks the kind of in-depth, sustained, and critical secondary coverage required to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.Thilsebatti (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ul Haq Darvish

[edit]
Atta ul Haq Darvish (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)

No reason given. Technical nomination only. AfD created improperly by Mister Bahattar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please note that the subject appears to be a mmber of the Senate of Pakistan, which normally indicates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is here -> Didn't meet GNG and WP:NBASIC Mister Bahattar (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Bazaar (restaurant)

[edit]
Spice Bazaar (restaurant) (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 notable, fails WP:NCORP. Only somewhat in-depth (and still really not) coverage is the FoodNama piece, which is not a great source. The rest are just passing mentions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORED
AFD re-opened and article restored

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • @UtherSRG: I deleted this article earlier today and then undeleted it because G5 doesn't apply, owing to Alalch E.'s significant rewrite, and Rollinginhisgrave's support, although Alalch seems to have second thoughts. I think this should be relisted and allowed to run its course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I'm personally fine with UtherSRG's G5, but that's just how I feel, and I don't own my rewrite. Basically, what I had done was exploratory. Frankly, I was going to !vote delete, but I was intrigued and slightly "irritated" (not really in a bad way) by Rollinginhisgrave's !vote... Their three reviews are all from 2015 when the restaurant opened, and although 2/3 are bylined, the implications of WP:RSNOI should be seriously considered. So yeah, I wanted see where coming up with a semblance of encyclopedic coverage would take me before I solidified my opinion. (I also wanted to find out what the ground facts about this subject are, because questionable articles about probably-non-notable companies sometimes turn out to be wildly inaccurate).
    Edit: Thinking about it for a few more minutes and considering everything, and with consideration to Rollinginhisgrave's advocacy which should not be undercut considering that G5 technically does not apply after all ("have no substantial edits by others"), my motivations and thought process notwithstanding (not really important), I agree that the discussion should probably be allowed to run its course. —Alalch E. 17:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zafar Iqbal Marwat

[edit]
Zafar Iqbal Marwat (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)

Meets WP:ANYBIO but not WP:NBASIC; thus, per WP:BIOSPECIAL, I suggest merging or preferably redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ishaq Khattak (officer)

[edit]
Muhammad Ishaq Khattak (officer) (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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, including from any of the references currently present. Most of the article is currently not verified by the citations. A WP:BEFORE did not find anything to support notability, although Urdu-language sources may have something. I suggest redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • AirshipJungleman29 The rank of major general, combined with being a Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military; the second highest award), reflects a career of national-level distinction. These are not routine achievements.
  • As per WP:NOTE: "The barometer of notability is whether reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail." In military contexts, however, high-ranking officers are often not profiled in depth unless involved in controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Your assertion here is factually incorrect, it is not the case that every Major General in Pakistan receives the Hilal-i-Imtiaz. There is no official policy mandating this. Even if a significant number are awarded it, that does not diminish its status as a nationally recognized honor (2nd highest award) explicitly listed under WP:ANYBIO.
More importantly, WP:ANYBIO does not require an award to be rare, it requires that the subject has received a "widely recognized honor or award at a national level" or "held a significant command position in a national military organization." This subject satisfies both conditions: a two-star general and a recipient of the Hilal-i-Imtiaz.
Additionally, coverage in reliable sources is a requirement of WP:GNG, but it is not a requirement of WP:ANYBIO. As per WP:N:
"Satisfying any one of the notability guidelines is sufficient for notability."
Behappyyar (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind pointing out where WP:N states that latter quote Behappyyar? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I wrote it in my own words. Here is the exact quote:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Behappyyar (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what are the criteria outlined in the subject-specific notability guideline? You are looking for WP:NBASIC, which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". WP:ANYBIO is part of the "additional criteria", where people "are likely to be notable" but "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included".
If an article does not meet the basic criteria but meets the additional criteria, you should look at the section titled "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria". There, you see that the best solution is to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context." In this case, I suggest merging or redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army.
I think this encompassses my full argument, and will not be responding further in this nomination. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Siding with AirshipJungleman29 here. The biggest issue is simply the lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG) for this general. The Hilal-i-Imtiaz award is routinely given to every major general in the Pakistan Army. So, it's a common service award, not something that automatically makes someone notable for their own Wikipedia page, especially when there aren't in-depth articles written about them elsewhere. Wikipedia's WP:N policy is clear: just because someone might fit a subject-specific guideline like WP:ANYBIO, it doesn't matter if we can't find solid, independent sources to actually write the article from. Rackaballa (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a subject meets the criteria under WP:ANYBIO, they are presumed notable — and in that case (for army person who holds an major office or command), the level of "significant coverage" required under WP:GNG is not necessary. Behappyyar (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Ali Khan

[edit]
Fazal Ali 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)

This individual article fails in WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. There is only passing mention in news articles from a single news organization. The other two sources also have only WP:TRIVIALMENTION that he was the son of Chaudhri Sultan Ali that doesn't confirm the notability even when his father's article doesn't even exist. Delete this article per WP:FAILN. Sybercracker (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

70.9% copyrighted content still exist on this article even after the warnings/reminders. Sybercracker (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hind-Pak Bordernama

[edit]
Hind-Pak Bordernama (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:NBOOK. Author and publisher are both non-notable. The two sources in the article [1] [2] are both largely interviews of the author, which are excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The only other source I found during WP:BEFORE is this brief article [3] which just says that the book was "widely acclaimed". Astaire (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aapa Shameem

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aapa Shameem (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)

Closed as no consensus last month. Original rationale - "YouTube series that fails notability guidelines. Sourcing is unreliable or social media links. Twice decliend at AfC and an attempted move back to draftspace as an WP:ATD was obejcted to by creator." Recently discovered that one of !keep votes is a SOCK, leaving the creator Keep vote and a WP:VW vote for keep. Attempted to redirect yesterday and was told to take it back to AfD so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Aapa Shameem meets the criteria for notability as defined by WP:GNG and WP:NENT. The series has received WP:SIGCOV, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:
    • DAWN has published at least two critical columns analyzing the show themes, characters, and broadcast platform, not merely mentioning it.
    • Independent Urdu, a variant of The Independent, ran an analytical feature article titled (translated to English) "Aapa Shameem: Good for few and Bad for the others" which covers the show in depth.
    • South Asia Magazine, a regional magazine provided full plot, cast, and broadcast details, showing editorial depth.
    • Additional coverge from The Nation, Samaa TV, The Express Tribune, and BizAsiaLive (UK) adds independent recognition and visibility.

These outlets meet the standards of WP:RS and are unaffiliated with the subject. Claims that the show is a “YouTube series” are demonstrably false – it aired on a national broadcast network, as confirmed by DAWN.

Also, no references in the article rely on social media or user-generated platforms. The current nomination hinges largely on a procedural point (sock vote), not a new substantive challenge to the article's notability. In line with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ATD, this article deserves to remain in the mainspace. The table below demonstrates the show meets WP:GNG and WP:NENT via coverage in reliable, independent, and in-depth sources which go beyond trivial mentions and fulfill notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NENT.

Source Type Coverage Independence Reliability Summary of Content
DAWN – The Tube Column National newspaper In-depth analysis Independent of subject High Discusses broadcast details, themes of domestic power dynamics, and show's placement on national TV; not a passing mention.
Independent Urdu Reputable news site (localized version of The Independent) Thematic critique Independent High Critical column titled “Aapa Shameem: Good for Few and Bad for the Others” – explores polarizing viewer reactions and social commentary.
SouthAsia Magazine Regional print & digital magazine Feature article Independent High Offers comprehensive plot summary, cast information, and significance of the series in Pakistani pop culture.
The Nation National newspaper Mention with context Independent High Cites the series in the context of TV viewership and debut performances.
The Express Tribune English-language national daily (partnered with The New York Times) Trends coverage Independent High Analyzes how the show gained attraction via YouTube uploads by the official broadcaster.
Samaa TV Private national broadcaster Coverage of lead actress's debut Independent Medium–High Highlights the debuut of lead actor Zoha Tauqeer and the show's role in launching her career.
BizAsiaLive (UK) British entertainment/media site Ratings and visibility Independent Medium Reports on South Asian TV shows’ international performance and reception in UK-based diaspora.

Also as claimed, I'm in no hurry to close the discussion. If that would have been the casez why would I confidently ask the nominator to take it to WP:AfD again. Reshmaaaa (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VAGUEWAVE. There is a concern over notability which is why it is here. It would be like saying there are no concerns for socking (which there are). What "improvements" would you recommend it needs and on what basis are you claiming this is notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of Aapa Shameem has already been addressed with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources—including DAWN, Independent Urdu, and SouthAsia Magazine—clearly satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NENT.
Zakaria1978’s mention of "improvement" likely refers to editorial quality (tone, structure, citations), which is valid but not a deletion rationale per WP:ATD#IMPROVE and WP:CLEANUP. When notability is met, issues like formatting should be fixed, not used to justify removal.
Also, concerns about socking don’t negate the independent merits of the sources or the article’s eligibility. The focus here should remain on content, not conduct.Reshmaaaa (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping they can clarify their own statements as opposed to you and I assuming what they meant.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirkheli

[edit]
Tahirkheli (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)

GNG fails, not enough coverage Dolphish (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek-e-Nizam-e-Mustafa

[edit]
Tehreek-e-Nizam-e-Mustafa (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washuk bus accident

[edit]
Washuk bus accident (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)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or a brief mention in Washuk. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak) - PM and notable people commented, and event seems recent, so might still prove notable via WP:LASTING, maybe - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep terrible mass casualty accident, clearly notable. What another horrible accident. JMWt (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being horrible or terrible is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well unsurprisingly the families do not consider this to be a news story. In July 2024 they made public their call for a boycott of the bus company and the bus company was shut down after an investigation.
    If I could search better in Urdu, I think there are very strong indications that there is more analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to be found in the media and sustained coverage beyond a single day. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The main point of disagreement here seems to be that it is unclear if this is a case of WP:LASTING. Therefore, I think the best idea is to keep it as a draft form rather than going all the way on a delete and see if the accident continues to be notable since it only happened a little over a year ago. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This article could be massively improved by someone who can read Urdu (as JMWt noted). Although poor, the subject even as is is significant enough. Electricmemory (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftification can be useful for "hot-off-the-press" events. For something that happened over a year ago, an extra six months of incubation rarely changes the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Files for deletion

[edit]

Category discussion debates

[edit]

Template discussion debates

[edit]

Redirects for deletion

[edit]

MfD discussion debates

[edit]

Other deletion discussions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1302910255"