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

2024 Karachi Airport Bombing

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

Fails NEVENT. no WP:INDEPTH coverage. and IMO its, WP:TOOSOOON and WP:THEREISNORUSH — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Very rarely out of the many cases does terrorism in Pakistan get long term coverage so do what we have done with the rest and merge PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant terrorist attack effecting relations between China and Pakistan. And significant coverage is present. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiCleanerMan, Every terror attack is significant but you’ve got to show how this one stands out. There have been many of attacks in Pakistan targeting Chinese interests, and most of them don’t even have standalone articles. So why is this one different? Also prove how this attack has impacted the relationship between China and Pakistan. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I Believe the high quality sources cited, and the in-depth information featured in those articles absolutely meet the requirements for inclusion (hence the reason I went ahead and created this article). There is in-depth and significant coverage. Also: You can see just by searching "2024 Karachi Bombing" on Google. You can see that there are still significant sources covering and updating the event a day later (even ABC^[1] and CNN, and BBC, AP, etc) it would only make sense to create a Wikipedia article so that people have the facts from various sources in one place. The event is notable, it was a terrorist attack on an airport the same airport that suffered an attack 10 years prior.

You initially moved this article from the Main-space into a draft, because "more sources needed", as you said both on the revision, and on my Talk Page, and I believe the sources I linked more than suffice, (respectfully). Gonzafer001 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are attacks that have killed 10+ or 20+ people in Pakistan that did not receive lasting coverage - in fact, most of them. Pakistan has so much terrorism that any one attack receiving lasting coverage is incredibly slim, especially one this low profile. They all blow up in the news, are mentioned for two days, then never covered again. Event notability is maintained by LASTING coverage, not just coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY - I see where you are coming from, but this incident - involving an already designated and known Terrorist group Balochistan Liberation Army where they carried out an attack on Chinese investors and engineers is definitely something worth inclusion, Wikipedia is not about whether its editors support or not-support an article, it whether it's a good fit for the main-space. - Two people died in this attack which had targeted a "high-level target", even the The Chinese Embassy confirmed that the "high level convoy" included staff members from the Port Qasim Electric Power Company, a coal-powered plant developed through a joint venture between China and Pakistan.^[2]

The Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs even labeled this Bombing as a "Heinous Terrorist Attack"

- Heinous "hatefully or shockingly evil : abominable. heinously adverb. heinousness noun."

The Balochistan Liberation Army terror group has 3000 fighters, they themselves have a Wikipedia page.

Though two people were killed, and 10 were injured-- There is zero question that this incident is notable, it falls under the realm of WP:SIGCOV as I have attached reliable sources of which covered the story in-depth WP:DEPTH and from a neutral point-of-view--I even went ahead and attached News outlets from WP:DIVERSE regions such as Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc, all International sources outside the WP:GEOSCOPE. All of which are reliable enough to be included on Wikipedia themselves.-- Also for WP:SIGCOV: This article does not assume, it has only listed the facts that are known, including the fact that the separatist group claimed responsibility and that their target was a high value person. This event also shows proof of WP:PERSISTENCE, obviously news stories won't run forever but this specific event has been getting continuous coverage since the story broke-- News outlets are even doing more than one article on the event.

We have had 24 hours, the dust had settled already WP:DELAY is un-needed, hence the reason I had added WP:BREAKING to the header--We have enough info for a stub, and obviously enough news has come out in the past 24-hours to add even more information to the article.

But I do understand where you are coming from and I RESPECT it, but we should definitely keep this on the mainspace -- or at-least consider WP:RAPID Gonzafer001 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzafer001 Many of the previous attacks have gotten far more attention than this, also involving the same factors you mentioned, and almost all failed to sustain lasting coverage. Any breaking event is going to have sigcov when it happens. Attacks that have killed 20 people and have involved established terror groups often aren't notable because they don't get long term coverage! Pakistan specifically, their media rarely covers the specific individual incidents for long. In other countries it would make sense (though making breaking news articles it is a generally bad idea) but the pattern with Pakistan is overwhelmingly 99% of attacks there do not have lasting coverage due to the frequency, similarity, their security situation and their media ecosystem. They do not get the retrospective type articles that help notability in other cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2024 Jinnah International Airport bombing. Meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This is not a routine event, but an event that has effected China-Pakistan relations. So, prime minister of Pakistan is directly overseeing the investigation and this is not normal ([1]). 175.107.246.233 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Medical College

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

Non-notable diploma mill and is not recognized ([2], [3], [4]). Gheus (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator. Doha Dear (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women Medical and Dental College

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

Non-notable private medical school: mainly in the news for its violations [5], [6]. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Medical and Dental College

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

Apparently it is a diploma mill and is not recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council [7]. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator nailed it. Doha Dear (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdard College of Medicine & Dentistry

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

This article is marked as "PR", other articles I found briefly mention the college in relation to the parent organization. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ATD could be Hamdard University. Gheus (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turushka dynasty

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

This is a WP:HOAX. I have expertise in the subcontinental history of the first millennium and have never heard of such a "dynasty"; additionally, neither Reference 1, which is a Russian translation of Bosworth's Handbook, evidences any such dynasty nor does Reference 2. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a reference to the Turushka can be found on p. 197 of Bosworth's handbook, but defines them as "Muslim Turkish mercenaries"—nowhere near a dynasty. What Bosworth says elsewhere on the provided pages disproves everything else the article claims. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not an actual dynasty... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:AirshipJungleman29 79lives (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzaib Rind

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

I draftified this BLP on a non-notable athlete because I believe it doesn't meet the WP:N. Then the creator of the BLP submitted the draft for review, which I declined, but it was still moved to the main NS. I don’t think it meets GNG or even WP:ATHLETE, thus AFD'd it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject has received WP:DIVERSE coverage and the article also passes WP:GNG. The subject is a national champion in Wushu. By his own admittance, Saqib is once again WP:GAMING the system. Mister Banker (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC) :— Mister Banker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It’s interesting that you’re familiar with the policies, especially for someone with fewer than 50 edits. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a sock of a UPE. In any case, could you show how the subject meets the GNG? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA, sources are mainly database / promotional profile pieces or interviews which don't help notability. WP:TOOSOON for this fighter. Ravensfire (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search him on Karate Combat. Gul Butt (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable athlete. Completely fails notability for martial artists and lacks significant coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search him on Karate Combat. Gul Butt (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just click on news search.--Gul Butt (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khalil

AfDs for this article:

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

I draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been reviewed, then why AFD. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. But now this is a well referenced article. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titipupo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Titipupo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Titipupo: This article has been reviewed But I don’t see any evidence that the review was approved or even reviewed, as you mentioned. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. What led you to this conclusion? Did you write the version that was deleted? now this is a well referenced article. No, the BLP still lacks proper references and depends on unreliable sources. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable OK I've to agree but you've to help establish WP:N. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha

AfDs for this article:

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

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

The subject of this BLP may have directed a few Pakistani films, but he clearly does not meet the basic GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added Find Sources links for his other name above. Maybe that helps? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It seems that this was on my watchlist due to a previous version that got deleted. I don't remember that at all so I'm looking at this as if I was seeing the subject's name(s) for the first time. There is some notability here but I'm not sure whether it is enough. The Google News hits show multiple sources talking about his movies and, to some extent, about him. His films exist and they get reviewed, sometimes quite poorly, so it is not just puffery. I can't easily tell which sources are Reliable though. There has been controversy about one of the films which may even have been banned to some extent. Based on the English language hits I'm very much on the fence. It's not an obvious delete but I don't see enough to say keep either. I Google translated the Urdu version of the article to see if there was anything there that was helpful but it doesn't say much of anything and none of the sources there look any better than the ones here. If an Urdu speaker was to search for better sources then they might or might not find something that pushes this over the line to a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR and WP:CREATIVE pass with multiple films written and directed, that received significant critical coverage- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest India (pre-1947)

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

Article about a non topic, consisting of snippets of information we already cover properly and in depth in other articles. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete if not improved: The article is extremely sparse at present and everything there is already covered in other articles. But the historical-cultural idea of "northwest India" (as opposed to specifically the Indus Valley, Punjab, etc.) does seem to have some scholarly attention, at least from outsiders: [8], [9]. If the article weren't fairly new, I would be a firm delete, but I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt for now. But the article as it is isn't ready for mainspace. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era as suggested by author. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article, I don't have much to add to it or to voice on its fate. Some options might be to merge the contents into Northwestern South Asia, to redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era, or if seen as necessary, to create a new article called 'Northwestern Indian subcontinent' and then include the post-1947 history of the region as well into that article. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, draftify, merge, redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 63 RB Nihaloana Sahmal

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Reliable sources not available. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is eligible for soft deletion, but judging by the page history, if soft deleted, this will be requested at undelete. Can we get some more participation here? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab

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

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a very prominent lab within Pakistan. I think it should be tagged for a rewrite or something like that. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prominence or popularity doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Gheus (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the analysis of those three references:

1. It is about a corporate partnership, marked as "BR Web Desk", no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV.

2. Not directly about the company, but about a vaccine. Full of quotes, Chughtai said this and that.

3. Again, MOU, a press release style article with no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, SIGCOV doesn't exist in the local language, unfortunately. Courtesy ping @Wikibear47: to ask if they found coverage in local languages? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. Its a pretty obscure place with not much coverage. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find independent reliable coverage Wikibear47 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

[1] ttps://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/massive-blast-karachi-airport-pakistan-injures-4-114545962

[2] ttps://www.newsweek.com/chinese-targeted-karachi-airport-bombing-1964742

[1]

[2]