The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
COMMENT Smells of an ongoing and lately consistent effort to malign Pakistan on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and should not be turned into a forum for anti-Pakistan or anti-India propaganda. Let's not turn this AfD Forum into a battleground for people with specific agendas from ANY COUNTRY... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.104.99 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are few similar denials like this one covered in the news.com.pk, for neutrality such denials may be covered in the articles like Blasphemy in Pakistan. But just in 20 days or so there is another blasphemy lynching -that too of a Pakistani cleric itself- covered by Pakistan as well as international media. This is the news.com.pk, Dawn, Washington Post. Even latest Scholarly study like Hate Speech and Atrocity Prevention in Asia: Patterns, Trends and Strategies talks of issues including that of India and Pakistan, there in Pakistan related scholarly article dated 02 May 2023 by Khadija Rashid (PDF). Wikipedia talk pages are always open to discuss what any Encyclopedia is for including Wikipedia and which content is due and undue for Wikipedia as encyclopedia. Bookku (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per nom. The reportings I found are pretty vague in details, might be safer to wait for further updates. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in 'Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases' (with redirect from present title), in selected cases since case is notable enough to denote how Pakistan establishment can handle cases of blasphemy differently in case China-Pakistan foreign relations are involved. IMO meets enough WP:SIGCOV, but looking at China-Pakistan relation case likely to be played down in due course and do not expect much further updates. Bookku (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage was pretty widespread on the arrest (beyond the sources in the article, there's also e.g. NYT: [1], The Independent: [2], SCMP: [3]), and again when the subject was released on bail (e.g. Reuters: [4], Bloomberg: [5]). The Bloomberg article states an anti-terror court ruled that no offense had been committed and The main accuser in the blasphemy case kept changing his statement and bail has been granted until the case is concluded, which may take a few months, according to a police official, which makes it seem like there won't be many further developments here. I'm pretty unsure but providing these sources for others to judge; this feels borderline notable to me given the international attention. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 02:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.