Points of interest related to Pakistan on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan/archive

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

Sakhira (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 could be wrong, but I am not able to find any evidence this place exists. The coordinates listed don't go to a place with this name. Googling reveals just Wikipedia mirrors and Mari Shah Sakhira, which is a real place but already has a separate Wikipedia article. Article creator was no doubt working in good faith but seems to have had some other Pakistan place articles deleted for this same issue. Here2rewrite (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch yakjehti committee (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)

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet (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)

Neutral nomination. Bringing here for consensus after disputed draftification and re-creation at Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet (2024) by a number of socks. Not alleging libra is a sock, but this needs resolution in one direction or the other as the current situation is not sustainable. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will withhold my vote for now, until I make sure if it meets the GNG or not. But it's worth noting that the article on this topic has been created multiple times by socks of our prolific WP:PE Nauman335 and if this is also a case of UPE, it would be a clear violation of WP:TOU. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama: for now, as a compromise; but opposed to deletion given coverage on production; bylined review: [1]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC) or Keep given the other bylined review in a notable media, added recently with other sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Redirection make sense, to me as well. By the way, do I need to reiterate that youlinmagazine is not a RS and should not be used to meet the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You can reiterate what you wish, but there is absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable and it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined (:D) source for verification about the content of the program, in the present case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So what if there's no consensus for Youlin yet? Sometimes one should Ignore all rules and use WP:COMMONSENSE because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And indeed it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined Who said one can't use it? However, I mentioned that one cannot use it to justify GNG, especially since the author of this review piece is a guest contributor with merely two published articles under their by-line. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama although it received coverage but being a creator of this article, i dont want to entertain socks as the page is badly infected by socks just after its creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to, List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama as topic on lack it's notability and cited sources clearly not yet shown the notability to standa_lone.223.123.11.155 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratra (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any coverage of this subject outside of unreliable British Raj-era gazetteers. Searching on Google Scholar, Books, and online, I was able to find unrelated references to the name/term "Ratra" ([2]) but nothing relevant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources at this time to merit an article in Wikipedia. The sources that appear simply mirror each other. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Sports (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)

References do not show how this is notable. Plenty of unreliable sources and NEWSORGINDIA but nothing in-depth. Recommend a redirect to parent Pakistan Television Corporation. While I did not do so prior to the AfD, programming also needs to be removed per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It appears that the notability of the page is attempted to be heightened by the mentions of the programs it shows. CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but for those who may not be aware, PTV Sports is country's state-owned channel dedicated to sports, much like DD Sports in India. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for references, make sure to weed out those that apply to PTV Sports (TV program) as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Sports (TV program) is a Filipino TV program, so obviously editors searching in Pakistani sources won't encounter such references. 2A00:F29:248:C1E5:69B9:937C:A897:D420 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These "reliable sources" seem to fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Can you point out the specific ones that show notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many news articles show controversy or negitivity about channel. So, WP:NEWSORGINDIA may not apply here. This may apply when all are praising. Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how that works. NEWSORGINDIA has to do with the context of the article (who wrote it, is it churnalism, etc.), not whether it is positive or negative. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NEWSORGINDIA cannot possibly apply to this article (and I'm surprised the nom hasn't received blowback for even mentioning that country's name in this nom for a Pakistani subject and network); it has enough sources within to easily pass WP:N and is by default Pakistan's main sports channel. Cull back the programming list to only cricket and soccer as a simple list and source it; that's the only true issue with this article. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is a little uncivil but I understand your concern as it has been raised several times in the past. NEWSORGINDIA has been applied to the entire subcontinent in both articles and AfD discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nate. The RfC consensus ([3]) was just about Indian mainstream media, and there was no discussion that we can apply this to whole Indian subcontinent countries (i.e., Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). As far as I can see, only CNMall41 is trying to extend that consensus to whole South Asia as if they are part of India or these countries are in some sort of union like EU, which is not the case. I'd recommend seeking a similar consensus about Pakistani sources with evidence on WP:RSN first and then adding similar wording as a note for our reference. This is how this should work. 94.201.21.216 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you seem not to be familiar with the discussions. In fact, it was suggested to change the name as having "India" in the NEWSORGINDIA heading makes it seem like it is singling out a specific country and/or nationality which I don't think is proper. You are more than welcome to start a discussion but as stated, this has been applied in many AfD discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nate and WP:HEY. It is literally a state-owned monopoly and the only broadcaster of international events in Pakistan (Dawn covered it in detail). It has been operational since the 1970s as a sports division of PTV, similar to BBC Sports, which is a division of BBC. There is a large amount of offline and online coverage about the topic and some of them have been added already to the article. Meets WP:GNG. 2A00:F29:249:8243:E4E0:CA6C:D0E7:378B (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing coincidence. Back to back IP addresses commenting. But, here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Dawn, can you link to more in-depth coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an important sports channel in Pakistan that many people rely on for sports coverage. The channel is well-known and meets WP:GNG. Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. What are the references that support notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment (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)

Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Geo Entertainment: As the latter article is too short to justify splitting its content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Standard split from the network. Redirect and merge is possible but those who wish it should imv verify what's redirecting to the list to avoid undue deletions if double redirects are created. Having spent too much time commenting and voting on similar Afds I will not make any further comments here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out the coverage where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources?" --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity; Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan

contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or this list. or this kind of pages. Or this kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we are right back to NEWSORGINIDA. I only checked the first reference and didn't waste my time going deeper. [https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/589695-top-drama-serials-on-geo-entertainment-this-year bylined by "Instep Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I don't think there's anything rude here. Just be careful when using GUNREL sources to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.

But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable, is that not correct? (on a page you yourself created!!!)? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page you created(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....

But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about this page? Are you in cahoots with them? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The News itself is RS, but as @CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Still waiting for your apologies. And your point was "GUNREL", as you repeat below; so, no, it's not GUNREL, that's what I thought. QED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source dramaspice.net you cited is indeed GUNREL. Oh, why on earth should I apologize to you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.

As for why you should have apologised, I'm not the one who will explain that to you, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Not only has a history of disregarding NEWSORGINDIA in AfD's but also consistently relying on GUNREL sources to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nasty and undue comment.....so inappropriate. Hope you will apologise.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.

And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzammil Aslam (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 creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, no problem. However, @OwenX mentioned here that it’s safe to occasionally ping others for their input. But anyway I understand your position. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards Delete: the sources I found did not go beyond his nomination. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as falling short of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He has significant coverage in Urdu and English news. Even Bloomberg also mentioned him. Daily Jang, UrduPoint, GeoNews all cover him. So, in my opinion, its KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • امین اکبر, Everyone needs to avoid WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. They'll need to back up their claims with coverage that discusses the subject directly and in depth and enough coverage to clear WP:GNG. By the way, Bloomberg's mention is just a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but he is not mention in Bloomberg only. He has significant coverage in Urdu and English news Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Once more, please avoid WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus that WP:NPOL is not the standard to meet here but instead it's GNG and there are different opinions on whether coverage mention is SIGCOV or passing mentions or routine. The burden falls on those arguing to Keep to supply RS. Don't just mention publications, please provide links to articles that can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz The links were provided. In my opinion, the following three meet the SIGCOV and GNG. They are not merely passing mentions, but there is disagreement:

1. We News
2. TNN
3. Mettis Global

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]