Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sectarian violence in Pakistan

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarian violence in Pakistan

Delete: Strange article. Strange information. More mysterious than Marfa lights. There is nothing notable in this article, not one single notable incident. If anything worthy to mention, should be merged into Religion in Pakistan. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. —Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan. —Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. expanded --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said this article has no single notable incident. If anything worthy to mention, can be merged into main article. As it stands, the entire article depends on only two or three sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

several major incidents addressed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as it stands, the info can be merged into Islam in Pakistan. Do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic entry. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previously not, but now it deserves --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could use more sources, but this is a good start. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks good, I don't understand why it should be deleted Chris! _ct 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could use a broader variety of sources but this is clearly a notable problem in Pakistan. The lack of "incidents" which the nom decries may be fixed by expansion. Baffling nomination (and yes, I looked at the stub). --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination because the article have been improved later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2008 (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.