Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Pakistan[edit]

Chhokar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the current sources are significant coverage, and I think that the same issues from the August 2016 AfD still apply. So, this still fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, Pakistan, and India. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not seem to have been any attempt to find sources that actually prove notability, rather the reverse, a quick attempt to ignore the old AfD, notable or, as here, not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources don't seem to provide any substantial coverage. Waqar💬 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with some failing verification and others that have no significant indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nawaz Khan Jadoon[edit]

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

Fails NPOL as well GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid search term (WP:ATD), and add details there. WP:NPOL is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge if the topic would meet WP:GNG (read the introductory sentence of WP:NBIO: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. and now read the parent guideline WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.). Once notified for AfD, only WP:GNG matters, so please cite WP:GNG while nominating articles. If all we have are statistics of how many votes these crook politicians received then stand-alone articles are not needed. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, IP - So are you suggesting that we shoud redirect BLP of every single candidate to their constituency's article? With about 20,000 candidates in the 2024 election alone, I'm sure this is not a good precedent we are setting here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You Are right brother Saqib, we should not go for every candidate, actually this person is General Secretary of one of leading Nationalist Pakhtun Party name Qaumi Watan Party and you know General Secretary is second most important person in an organization after Chairman. That is my point, we should made an article for his details,
  
  Thank you for you support and understanding Tasawar Waris (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swat lynching incident[edit]

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

Horrible and highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. WP is not newspaper. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan to ensure that editors' efforts are not wasted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, per @Saqib's comment. Incident isn't WP:N enough to warrant an article. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I mean it was already so in theory it can be redirected but, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per the above recomendation I do agree with the nominator's concern.223.123.10.196 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is a continued coverage about the incident. see. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{2}}}|sock puppet]] of [{{canonicalurl:User:{{{2}}}}} {{{2}}}] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]). [reply]
- Mfarazbaig, OK but WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE also states coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge If the continued coverage is in some way transformative, as with Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, then a separate article might be merited. Is there a connection between this incident and larger social forces in Pakistan? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again. Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing. — Maile (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - agree wit above. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been discussed in several scholarly articles (perform an easy search on Google) and clearly meets WP:GEOLAND, though I think most sources won't be in English. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There should at least be one reference to verify that this place indeed exists and meets WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are rock carvings (petroglyphs) and inscriptions near Balghar. See this reference: Journal of Asian Civilisations. Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations. 2000. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures[edit]

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

Fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul. I agree with Saqib's assessment. This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic. I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now. 2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions[edit]

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

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir - the coverage is mostly related to its founder Asif Raza Mir so redirect for now. Fails WP:NCORP due to trivial coverage. 202.47.46.115 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated here given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([1]), Hindustan Times ([2]), Times of India ([3]), NPR ([4]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([5]), Youlin ([6]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([16]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Benazirabad[edit]

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

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Bilateral relations, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to France–Pakistan relations following WP:DIPLOMAT. Broc (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Baloch[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod.223.123.5.35 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources have no in-depth coverage. AmericanY (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [17], [18], [19], [20]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta[edit]

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [21] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks coverage from third party sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. — Saqib (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention (WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. — Saqib (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? — Saqib (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. - Amigao (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to China–Pakistan relations. The nom is right, the article violates WP:NOTNEWS and we have no WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to this visit being way too recent. It may or may not gather sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article in the future, but as it currently stands, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a standalone article. Pilaz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable visit. Not deserving a page on Wikipedia. Would not argue against a Redirect (or merge) as an alternate to deletion -- which equals it does not deserve a page. The event was not significant and did not precede any other notable event that resulted from the visit. In this case the article fails the Inclusion criteria #4, lacking "enduring significance". The event was just routine and the new coverage was just news of the event with no lasting historical significance. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing[edit]

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

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWittyNameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)[edit]

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

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[22] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [23]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [24] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [25] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [26]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [27] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [28] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not fulfil the WP:NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857[edit]

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

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murree#History. As noted by source #3 in the current article, ...Murree had played a small and insignificant role [in the Indian rebellion of 1857, and goes on to detail minor disorganized skirmishes. This seems appropriate to mention in the location's history as its local, minor participation in a major historical event (and it already is mentioned there), but it doesn't seem to be DUE for more than a sentence at Indian rebellion of 1857 and currently isn't mentioned there at all. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Rebellion of 1857 as that is the event it is directly related to. There doesn’t seem to be significant coverage of the subject to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's essentially no information about events in Murree at that page, whereas there is coverage of the 1857 rebellion at Murree#History. What's your reasoning for preferring the 1857 rebellion page as a target? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murree#History: Searched for sources but could not find any that can make this event as notable and keep the article. Hence, there are two options for redirecting: the first is Indian Rebellion of 1857, as this event was part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but that article does not mention anything about the ‘Murree rebellion,’ nor does it mention Murree even once. Therefore, I support the second option, Murree#History, proposed by Rosguill, which mentions the event. GrabUp - Talk 14:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No lasting significance or retrospective coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaharkaray[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a HOAX, at the least. Saqib (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. _Jovian ^Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. _Jovian ^Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the place may indeed exists, it does not meet WP:GNG and does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for a standalone article. The article itself does not contain comprehensive detail about the shrine, but about the goddess and the legend connected to that goddess. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party[edit]

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the required to win an election to get listed on wikipedia, secondly as for the WP:GNG is concerned, this party is got some coverage from reliable independant sources. e.g:

https://www.urdupoint.com/politics/party/pakistan-falah-party-84.html

https://www.dawn.com/news/676942/another-political-party-is-born

https://pakvoter.org/political_parties/pakistan-falah-party/ Subhanyusha (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Subhanyusha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Subhanyusha, Unreliable sources except Dawn, and no sig/in-depth coverage in Dawn news story. — Saqib (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman has demonstrated sufficiently deep coverage of this party, I don't think those sources are generally unreliable. Whizkin (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Whizkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete poor sourcing, some serious WP:UPE vibes here don't help this article's case. The keeps in this case do not provide a sufficiently strong rationale for delete beyond poor quality sources.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has significant coverage on reliable sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can you provide that significant coverage that meets the GNG? It seems everyone (mostly fresh accounts) is just casting keep and saying there's significant coverage, but no one's backing up that claim in a way that meets WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party has received sufficient coverage for general notability. Winning an election is not required for notability. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (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]