Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSP)
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

Universities in lahore

edit
Universities in lahore (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 needed as there is another similar topic article called List of educational institutions in Lahore and this is promotional and reads like an essay. Text like Lahore is known to be a hub of higher education in Pakistan with many universities and higher education awarding institutions.[14] Medicine, engineering, business, information technology, and health sciences are programs offered in the city both in response to long-established academic traditions and the present condition. To the Pakistani diaspora in other parts of the world including the Middle East, Europe, North America and Australia, Lahore has become a popular higher education destination.[15] Its higher institutions integrate internationally competitive courses with a cultural and historical background that does not lose sight of the national identity. The relative low cost of tuition and living costs, the growing international awareness of the institutions in the city, and the welcoming atmosphere of the students all contribute to the attractiveness of Lahore to an academic ___location. Students in and outside of Pakistan are still drawn to the city due to professional qualification as well as cultural and academic ties to Pakistan. sounds like it is made from AI. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:List of educational institutions in Lahore is a long list only. Universities in Lahore is good ..i think ...giving programs offered also. vote too retain Universities in Lahore Mustafaimamibd (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Mustafaimamibd that does not matter. Why do you need a separate list of universities when there are more options in the main article? ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Rafaelthegreat while respecting your opinion, that list is not telling the programs. I am thinking of improving this article and include in this more universities. What you Say. List of educational institutions in Lahore is just a directory of institutes. Mustafaimamibd (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Mustafaimamibd no. There is literally a section in List of educational institutions in Lahore that shows a university section. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously AI generated and reduplicates an existing article's info. You could maybe even A10 this ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Don't Delete : A10 cannot be the reason for deletion of this article. List of educational institutions in Lahore is just revealing university listing, whereas Universities in Lahore, is taking into account University Maturity and their Offered Programs. Highedpk (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Highedpk the thing is that this article has 11 universities, as @WeirdNAnnoyed told us. But the List of educational institutions in Lahore has dozens. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 19:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::::@Rafaelthegreat NO DELETE: I do value your opinion but list of educational institutions in Lahore is a general list of institutions. Readers, who are just interested in knowing about Universities in Lahore, may require a list of Universities in Lahore only. Deleting this list will deprive them from specific information. Mustafaimamibd (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Mustafaimamibd THIS IS PROMOTIONAL!!!!! ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somehow the creator managed to not capitalize the title properly, but spelled everything else right. Obvious AI. Lynch44 14:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lynch44 haha that's actually funny. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Don't Delete : Seems not to be AI. At least reader is knowing the maturity of the universities. A must info Highedpk (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Highedpk how? Text like Lahore is known to be a hub of higher education in Pakistan with many universities and higher education awarding institutions.[14] Medicine, engineering, business, information technology, and health sciences are programs offered in the city both in response to long-established academic traditions and the present condition. To the Pakistani diaspora in other parts of the world including the Middle East, Europe, North America and Australia, Lahore has become a popular higher education destination.[15] Its higher institutions integrate internationally competitive courses with a cultural and historical background that does not lose sight of the national identity. The relative low cost of tuition and living costs, the growing international awareness of the institutions in the city, and the welcoming atmosphere of the students all contribute to the attractiveness of Lahore to an academic ___location. Students in and outside of Pakistan are still drawn to the city due to professional qualification as well as cultural and academic ties to Pakistan. is pure AI. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 16:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::::I think somebody modified the article Highedpk (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Highedpk ok, but this article is unnecessary. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 16:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::::::I don't think so. Refer to Wikipedia objective Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Now, in conjunction with this objective, the content of discussed article is in consonance with the objective of Wikipedia. University Maturity is of much importance than just a list showing universities. Add to this, the programs, which a university is offering. Now Universities in Lahore is giving this information to the reader. I think this article is better than List of educational institutions in Lahore. Highedpk (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

@Highedpk is that response AI? ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 18:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::@Highedpk Agreed Mustafaimamibd (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Thanks Sherazifarhan (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) confirmed sock-puppeteer of Highedpk[reply]
@Highedpk @Mustafaimamibd @Sherazifarhan explain how this works. You all make no sense. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 01:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::@Rafaelthegreat thanks for giving this opportunity to support my viewpoint. Firstly List of Educational Institutions in Lahore is more like a directory of institutions existing in Lahore. whereas Universities in Lahore is only about the universities, their offered program domains, and their years of existence. Secondly, readers refer to Wikipedia for Up-to-date information, Neutral perspective, and Educational support. The List of Educational Institutions in Lahore is not giving Up-to-date information as many institutions in that list are non existent today and many are not having their Charters renewals by the statutory bodies in Pakistan. The educational Support part is missing in your referred list as there is a lack of information in relevance to Educational Programs being offered by those institutions. In contrast Universities in Lahore, is giving specific, and Up-to-date information with a neutral perspective. I hope that I have made my point clear for your kind consideration. Mustafaimamibd (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock ::::::::::I second @Mustafaimamibd, while suggesting a NO DELETE of universities in lahore. i am also engaged in adding some more useful content, so that universities in lahore can become more relevant and useful. Highedpk (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

*:@WeirdNAnnoyed List of Educational Insititues in Lahore is a general list not beneficial for readers interested in universities only. There are 82 Citations, out of which 70 are direct links to the institutions website. Pl check this out. 85% of citations in list of Educational Institions in Lahore are to instituins website. Whereas Universities in Lahore is having 73% direct links. So NO DELETE, NO RE DIRECT. maintain the list and yes there is always room for improvement Mustafaimamibd (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock *::@Mustafaimamibd you spoke up my heart. I went through Universities in Lahore and also List of educational institutions in Lahore. Universities in Lahore is more beneficial it pinpoints to universities only, CreativeRebels (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

*:Check out this article French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. both are there despite there is a repetitive content in both. Mustafaimamibd (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Operation Rajiv

edit
Operation Rajiv (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)

The engagement in question was of limited significance, with minimal casualties and no participation of senior officials. The highest-ranking officer involved was a Major. Such localized insurgent encounters are relatively common in the Kashmir region, where mid-level officers typically lead the troops. The article lacks comprehensive sourcing; no independent or in-depth references have been provided. The majority of the citations are drawn from Indian-leaning sources, with none reflecting a neutral perspective. Additionally, two references consist solely of interviews or statements from a participant in the battle, which do not meet neutrality standards. As such, the article does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kulkarni, R.; Karpe, A. (2022). Siachen, 1987: Battle for the Frozen Frontier. HarperCollins India. p. 17. ISBN 978-93-5629-473-8.
Gokhale, Nitin A. (2015-04-27). Beyond NJ 9842: The SIACHEN Saga. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 277. ISBN 978-93-84052-26-3.
MacDonald, Myra (2021-11-26). White as the Shroud: India, Pakistan and War on the Frontiers of Kashmir. Hurst Publishers. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-78738-751-5.
Orientls (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the mentioned sources are Indian sources, the third one is only neutral but the book is certainly not available in the public ___domain. A book authored by Indian general is not a reliable reference for this case. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the battle didn't have any significant outcome. There are literally hundreds of battle fought during a war, but we do not make an article on each one of them. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provided are published by reliable publications thus you cannot analyze reliability of these sources based on author's nationality. First book has 2 authors, one is a military official while another person is a teacher of history. Second book is written by Nitin Anant Gokhale who is totally an independent source and reliable enough as he does not make any exceptional claims. You already agree third one is reliable enough so I dont have to explain about that. I am also not going to argue that why dont you consider capturing of an altitude of approximately 21,000 feet to be significant enough. Orientls (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reliable sources:
Orientls (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article notable and well sourced
Bongan® →TalkToMe← 14:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hussainiwala

edit
Battle of Hussainiwala (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)

An article about a battle at an Indian village in 1971, that is lacking any WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable, secondary sources, despite there being a plethora books focusing on the parent Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The article currently only cites the scarce works of the Pakistani junior commanders, who fought the battle at the time and wrote memoirs and articles in the Pakistani fora about it, and these are neither reliable nor suffice for establishing the noteworthiness of the subject for a standalone existence here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The battle resulted in the awarding of several gallantry distinctions on both sides. From Pakistan, personnel received 5 Sitara-e-Jurat (the third-highest gallantry award), 6 Tamgha-e-Jurat (the fourth-highest gallantry award), and one Imtiazi Sanad (Mentioned in Dispatches). From India, awards included 8 Maha Vir Chakra (the second-highest gallantry award) and 18 Vir Chakra (the third-highest gallantry award).
This engagement holds considerable importance, equivalent to Battle of Shiromoni, Battle of point 5140, Battle of Point 4875, and others.
It is important to note that battles are typically fought and led at the level of junior officers; one would not expect a flag officer like three-star generals or brigadiers to personally lead them. (However, the battle was directly fought by a Brigadier, and a Maj Gen was directly involved in the battle). The examples cited below also demonstrate this pattern :
  1. Battle of point 5140 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi
  2. Battle of Point 4875 — Lt. Col. Yogesh Kumar Joshi & Capt. Vikram Batra
  3. Battle of Shiromoni — Maj. Abul Manzur
  4. Battle of Boyra — Flt. Lt. Roy & Wg. Cdr. Afzal
  5. Battle of Kushtia — Maj. Shoeb
𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the battle has been in the national news of the countries which engaged in the warfare. For example - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and so on. The battle has been mentioned in detail in the sources mentioned above
The battle has been mentioned in numerous books as well, such as
  1. India's war since independence : Defence of the Western Front by Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh
  2. Against all Odds : The Pakistan Air Force in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War by Kaiser Tufail
  3. An Atlas of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War : The Creation of Bangladesh by John. H Gill
  4. Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership by Fazal Muqeen
The present condition of the article might be poor, but I assure I will improve the condition by adding additional citations.

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is user generated. Bol news article is written by Pakistani military officials. Tribune is an opinion piece. Dawn article is about a review of a book written by a Pakistani military officer. These sources are not reliable for this battle. Shankargb (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references of the four books mentioned above contains documented history, those can be used as reliable sources.
I'm currently reading the books, I'll add the citations today or tomorrow with cross checking the information with several sources.
Also, for your kind information, books written by army personnel are often considered as a good source, only if the information matches with another source — for this case it would. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr, which reliable source says that this relatively obscure battle resulted in "8 Maha Vir Chakra and 18 Vir Chakra" for India, or are you making it all up by yourself? Additionally, getting a "third-highest gallantry award" or "Mentioned in Dispatches" may be a grounds for notability for the person getting the honour, but it is by no means a ground for notability of the battle itself. People fighting terrorists in Kashmir get these recognitions all the time but we don't go on writing about every other encounter.. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found a source about the MVC or VrC, I cited that as it was written there, though I have added a source about Pakistani awards, and hopefully you are educated enough to know the difference between encounter and a battle. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr If you don't have sources for, hell your very premise for why you wish to keep this subject as a standalone article, you should desist from peddling these unverifiable details, which may mislead others into forming an inaccurate impression about the subject. Hundreds of battles are fought in a war, but, likewise, we don't indiscrimately write about every single one, only the notable ones. You wish to 'keep' this article because the battle allegedly resulted in gallantry awards and MiDs for soldiers and yet, that too you cannot attest with reliable sources. I don't see merit in your !keep. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the source for Pakistani awards. I'm presently working to improve the condition of the battle part, as I've already polished the article's ORBAT, casualties and aftermath version. If I find a suitable source for the claim of Indian awards to stand, I'll add it otherwise I wont. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


There's also a book by Tariq Rahman that mentions the battle:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources you adduce are unfortunately exactly emblematic of what ails this article and why it is up for deletion here. Ahmed's The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is nothing but a memoir he wrote to relay his personal experiences from this very battle in which he claims to have commanded his Pakistani unit. For our purposes, this source is clearly unfit for statements of facts, much less interpretative or analytical claims concerning this subject. It may only be considered reliable for his own opinions, subject to our policies, period. While your second source seems to offer nothing more than a passing mention about this subject. The policy is clear that it requires WP:SIGCOV in "reliable sources independent of the subject", and we cannot have it go for a toss just to accommodate obscure subjects with no significance or claims to notability into our encyclopedia. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[8]
The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war is not a reliable source here because the author was "a Commanding Officer at the time".[9]
I would like to see page number for "Pakistan's wars: an alternative history". THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 07:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I have recently made a series of updates to improve the article, and for the sake of clarity and transparency I am outlining them below:
  1. Territorial changes were updated in line with WP:NPOV to ensure the section remains balanced and neutral.
  2. Strength and casualty figures were removed from the infobox as they were unsourced, fails verification under WP:V.
  3. Ranks of the officers who had taken part in the warfare have been corrected, with citations provided from reliable sources.
  4. ORBAT for both India and Pakistan has been revised using official military histories and neutral references such as An Atlas of the 1971 India–Pakistan War: The Creation of Bangladesh and others (with page numbers cited for transparency).
  5. Details of the 4 December operations have been expanded with references from both an Indian general and a Pakistani Air Force officer. Since both sources corroborate one another, I felt this was a valuable addition.
  6. Casualty figures have been updated with references from national news and the regimental history of 15 Punjab. I will try to source and add Pakistani casualty figures.
  7. Awards and decorations : Pakistani recipients have been cited from reliable sources, while unsourced information on Indian recipients was removed until proper references can be traced and used.


I have aimed throughout to maintain neutrality, improve sourcing, and enhance the article’s overall quality. If any of the sources I have used are considered unsuitable, please raise the concern here or on the talk page. I am open to replacing or improving them where needed.

I plan to continue working on the remaining sections in the coming days, and I welcome constructive input so we can collaboratively ensure the article reflects reliable, well-sourced, and balanced information. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Ali (musician)

edit
Zeeshan Ali (musician) (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 musician - i'm actually fairly sure i've either participated or afd'd this myself in the past - this is entirely vanity spam and nonsense. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Zeeshan Ali qualifies under the notability guideline for musicians:
He has been featured on major platforms like Nescafé Basement (Season 4) and Coke Studio Pakistan (Season 15), which are independent and notable. (in fact, top music platforms in Pakistan)
The Print, a reputable independent news outlet, covered his rising popularity and compared him to Ali Sethi, demonstrating significant media attention.
His popularity is quantifiable: Spotify shows over 1 million monthly listeners, and MusicMetricsVault reports over 43 million total plays as of August 2025.
These indicate that the article satisfies the notability requirement. Further improvements—such as adding citations, linking from related articles, and removing promotional tone—would strengthen it. Deleting preemptively would disregard substantial evidence of his public impact and recognition.
Saadriaz009 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mehran

edit
Daily Mehran (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 subject. I could not find reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject and have a reputation of fact-checking ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tariq Masood (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)

The article has already been deleted twice, once in 2023 and again in 2024. Looking at the current version, it reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a résumé written in a promotional tone. As for the references, the majority come from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which are largely routine coverage. The subject seems to appear in the news from time to time mainly due to controversies, which again amounts to routine coverage. I don’t think the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR in any way. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as the creator of this article) – I respectfully disagree with the deletion nomination. The subject meets WP:GNG because there is clear evidence of significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources across different regions and languages. In Pakistan, outlets such as Dawn have covered Tariq Masood’s role in national debates including his participation in anti-extremism seminars and opposition to domestic legislation, while The Express Tribune reported on his participation in major religious conferences. In India, mainstream newspapers including The Print, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Rajasthan Patrika have all reported on him, particularly in the context of blasphemy debates, public threats, and controversies. In Bangladesh, media such as Somoy News, Kaler Kantho, Dhaka Today, Dhaka Post, and Naya Diganta gave extensive coverage to his 2025 tour, including addresses at leading universities and mass gatherings, with multiple outlets analysing the reasons for his popularity among youth. In addition, his presence is documented in academic work: a 2024 German-language study on antisemitism in social media lists him among Pakistani clerics whose Urdu sermons contained hostile rhetoric towards Jews and Zionism,[1] while a 2023 peer-reviewed chapter on Islamic preaching analyses his use of social media as part of wider trends in South Asian religious discourse.[2]
    The range of sourcing—spanning Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Germany—demonstrates coverage that is neither routine nor trivial, but substantial and sustained over time. It includes reporting on his educational background, international preaching, controversies, and his role in social debates. This satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, since coverage exists in both news media and academic literature. The article draft may have contained promotional tone, but this is a matter for neutral copy-editing and trimming under WP:NPOV, not a reason for deletion. Given the breadth and independence of sources, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and the article should therefore be kept. Khaatir (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)    [reply]

References

  1. ^ Hübscher, Monika; Mering, Sabine von (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien [Antisemitism in Social Media] (in German). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1.
  2. ^ Sajjad, Mohammad Waqas (2023-12-18), Akca, Ayşe Almıla; Feise-Nasr, Mona; Stenske, Leonie; Süer, Aydın (eds.), "Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan", Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, De Gruyter, pp. 237–256, doi:10.1515/9783110788334-012, ISBN 978-3-11-078833-4, retrieved 2025-08-18
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - previous deletions:
    • 21 November 2020 - PROD - "This article is about a non-notable character in a TV series."
      • That first article was not about this person
    • 23 November 2020 - speedy deletion "(A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
      • The current version of the article clears the low bar of WP:A7 by a wide margin
      • This second article followed the PROD by 2 days - was it about the same TV character?
    • 14 December 2020 - speedy deletion "(G12-type: copy-paste from draft space)"
      • WP:G12 isn't applicable to this version
      • This third article followed the PROD by 3 weeks - was it about the same TV character?
    • 24 October 2023 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood.
      • 3 editors !voted to delete (besides the nominator). All 3 were subsequently indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of banned users Syed amjad08, Dove's talk and Darshak.parmar. One other person expressed reservations about deletion but did not formally say "keep". Had the socks been discovered during the AfD, it would probably have been kept open and re-listed.
      • This fourth version was about the same Muslim cleric as the current article
    • 6 September 2024 - speedy deletion "(A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
      • The current version of the article clears the low bar of WP:A7 by a wide margin
      • Was that fifth, 2024 article about the cleric or the TV character?
I don't think any of the 5 previous deletions apply to the current article. Some weren't even the same person. I'm not arguing that the article should be kept -- just that the previous deletions shouldn't have much bearing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

Admin note, just answering to AB's questions about deleted content: September 2024 deleted article is a much worse article about this same person, as were December 14 and November 23, 2020. None are relevant to the content in the current article at AfD for reasons you indicated above. No opinion on merit of current one as to notability Star Mississippi 01:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nadia Ali (actress) (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)

The 2017 AfD was snowed in favor of retaining the article. I believe this was incorrect. The subject fails ANYBIO. The subject has not received a well known honor nor has the person made a widely recognized contribution to the field. The claim to fame is basically “Muslim adult performer.” This performer post-dates Mia Khalifa’s hijab scene, so Nadia Ali is not any sort of “first,” in the field. Even if she were, what exactly is her contribution here? There were remarks in the first AfD that she was threatened and it got coverage. A woman was threatened online? Hardly a man bites dog situation. If one wants to argue ANYBIO, how was adult entertainment changed by her brief time in the industry? It was not. Even then, ANYBIO (which I maintain she does not meet) is merely a likelihood, not a guarantee. There is substantial overlap between ANYBIO and WP:ENT, so this might be a little redundant, BUT she did not star in many adult films and as I mention in why I believe the subject fails ANYBIO, her short-lived career did not have a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Even the sources themselves state she did a small number of scenes. WP:EVENT would not consider her notable for any of the scenes had they gone viral.

The other argument is WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is such: There are two Daily Beast interviews and a quote of her all written by the same author (an actual notable performer). For the purposes of GNG, this would be a single source only if those interviews are considered sufficiently independent of the subject. The other sources are also interviews and press releases.

In the first AfD, someone listed a bunch of sources as a rebuttal. The problem is some run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the repetitive natures of those that don’t run afoul make me question the intellectual independence and if such a list was confusing existence with notability. Mpen320 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Open to changing my vote if someone brings better WP:THREE sources. Until then, the subject fails WP:GNG per my analysis of the sources mentioned above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm leaning Keep with references 1-3 listed here, and articles in the Daily Beast with a couple of paragraphs about the subject like [15] (ProQuest 1813269656) and [16] (ProQuest 1780576122, part interview). This one [17] pasted as a link above from The Times is a summary of Daily Beast interviews (I think it should count). I'm seriously considering Mpen320's WP:ANYBIO point though. One could argue that being one of the first Muslim porn actresses might not be notable, but there is coverage of the subject, and the ANYBIO argument can be subjective. Nnev66 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have essentially repeated what the previous editors mentioned. Those sources are op-eds, syndicated news, no consensus on reliability and The Times is inaccessible. This is without even considering the fact that they are interviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm explaining why I'm leaning Keep, hence my summary of the references. I think it's important to have references under consideration for GNG have numbers (i.e. not be pasted as links or with descriptions) so it's easier for editors to discuss them. The following in my opinion contribute to WP:BASIC: 1, 2, 3, 6/7 (I'm counting these together as one reference), 8. Note 8, The Times reference, is accessible by me so perhaps trying opening it in a different browser. This reference's content is based on a Daily Beast interview (primary source) but since it is using the DB interview as a basis for its content it's secondary. Nnev66 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time, please upload or share an image of The Times reference as it is not accessible on my mobile or desktop even after trying with multiple browsers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the article is "Actress threatened after hijabi porn is unveiled" and there is a picture of Ali with the caption "Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States". The article starts off with a couple of paragraphs about “hijabi porn”. Here is the content about the subject from the article:
    Nadia Ali, one of its stars, said she was “doing porn as a Pakistani woman for the liberal movement, bringing women in a scarf or a head wrap to the camera. Now it’s no longer behind closed doors.” Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States, told The Daily Beast website that she was a practising Muslim and sought to avoid explicit references to Islam in the titles of her films. “I’ve been told, ‘you’re not a Muslim, you’re a disgrace to Pakistan, Pakistan won’t accept you,’ but I do come from a Middle Eastern background and I am Muslim, not the way my parents are, but by practice,” Ali said. “For me, it’s about the Pakistani culture, not the religion,” she said. “This year I plan to do a lot of girl on girl and solo scenes to show the world that Middle Eastern girls of Pakistani descent really do get horny.” Ali and Mia Khalifa, a Lebanese adult film actress, say they have received death threats after performing dressed in a hijab. Nnev66 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think this discussion might need a bit more time to consider whether sources provided are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

edit
Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (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 did a simple Google search on this person and only found a few fan-promoted websites. The article cites nine references: sources 1 and 7 are unreliable, user-generated fandom sites; 8 and 9 are death notices about someone else, with no direct relevance; and 5 and 6 are not references at all. The only primary source (Ahmad Noori) is used twice, but it is also unverifiable. No secondary sources are present to demonstrate the significance of this person as a religious figure per Wikipedia guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.
Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since one of the votes to keep is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

edit
Tanzeem Ul Firdous (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)

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
  • 2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
  • 3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
  • 4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
  • 5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.
This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

edit
Islamabad Policy Research Institute (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 does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG - ff the three references, one is a broken link to a UPenn global list of think tanks, one is an e-paper article on their engagement of a US lobbying firm, and thhe other is to a copy of one of the subject's own reports. Epsilon.Prota talk 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry, I should have taken the time to figure out exactly what was done at the article previously. Normally I try to do that and this time I missed it. Anyway, I have now added 2 more newspaper references to help improve the article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Removed the one primary source reference that this article had. Replaced it with 4 archived newspaper references. I archived all Pakistani newspaper references in case of electrical power outages there as we all know from the current news from Pakistan that there is severe river flooding and very heavy rains of the Monsoon season all over the country. Much higher chance of references working when they are archived by Wayback Machine based in the United States.

This article is much improved now, if we also consider the 4 book references supplied above by 4meter4...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:21, 29 August 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=1308900419"