Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan)


 * 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.

The result was keep. While the article still needs work on citations, the consensus was clear that there was enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that it passes GNG. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 12:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Al-Shams (East Pakistan)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page does not meet the basic guidelines of Wikipedia regarding notability and neutrality and lacks reliable sources to even establish significance. The page is filled with citation tags.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 19:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Sh eri ff  |  report  | 19:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Sh eri ff  |  report  | 19:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient mentions in English. While they're mostly just mentions with few details, the fact that Bangladesh executed one of its leaders in 2015 for war crimes, despite a protest, attests to its long-term significance.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment They are mere mentions, you cannot build a Wikipedia article out of these.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Question You've removed more than half the article, saying that it's unsourced. How do you assess the article's cited sources? The nomination mentions a lack of "reliable sources", but BanglaNews24.com and Ekushey Television are mainstream news outlets in Bangladesh. If they fail to meet WP:GNG, what point do they fail on? Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The sections removed were completely unsourced and tagged for citation since June 2014 and nobody could find citation for that material for one and half years, that explains why it's not even a notable subject. Now, people can see what we are talking about, the lede is still tagged for citation. Did you see another article before where even there were no sources for the lede? Not sure, what do you mean by mention of "BanglaNews24.com and Ekushey Television"? Can you be more specific?  Sh eri ff  | report  | 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking about the two sources referenced in the article. On what grounds do you feel they fail to meet WP:GNG? Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sources do not support the information presented in the article. Technically, this article does not have any sources to support its notibility.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've now removed more than 90% of the article, including all of its sources. Since most other editors on the English-language Wikipedia are not fluent in Bengali, the language of the sources you removed, kindly provide a translation of those sources to substantiate your assertion that they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the only two sources cited are dead links... which leaves no sources, reliable or otherwise. Curro2 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ekushey TV source could easily have been recovered from archive.org here . In any case, by Wikipedia policy, sources need not be online. The fact that they were dead when you looked at them is not a sound reason for deleting the article.


 * The only reason the article has no sources is that nom deleted them all and does not appear to have taken reasonable steps to look for alternative as directed by WP:BEFORE.


 * Removing the contents of the article and its sources immediately after nominating it for deletion is inimical to this discussion, and has been reverted. If the consensus here is keep, then the discussion likely will have identified sources to support some or all of the content. If the consensus is delete, it will all be removed anyway. There's no reason to shoot first and ask questions later. Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, at this point, we have one source in the article Ekushey TV, the other one is a dead link so basically we are relying on just one source which is not even a reliable third-party source. A bengali newspaper citing atrocities in East-Pakistan by Pakistani-supported militia cannot be considered a third-party source. The information which i removed could not be attributed to a source at the time i removed it and most of it still cannot be attributed. The editing of that page should be treated separately than AFD discussion. If you want, you can start a discussion at the talk page of that article and present your case why that information should not be removed. Instead of reverting me on that page, you should have attempted to source the content which you restored or left it removed according to WP:RS since it lacked reliable sources.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 16:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find Link rot helpful. The BanglaNews24.com article was reprinted here (and also archived at the blacklisted archive dot is/P9urm). Worldbruce (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Searching DAWN and The Daily Star, the largest English-language newspapers of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively, returns hundreds of hits for "Al-Shams", a few of the most relevant being:, , , and . A couple books that make more than a passing mention of Al-Shams are published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and  from an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield. Al-Shams also earns an (albeit brief) encyclopedia article here: . Although none of these is as significant as a book-length history of the Al-Shams organization, keep in mind that WP:ORG instructs us that, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I don't have full-text HighBeam Research access, but a search there for "Al-Shams Pakistan" returns 74 results, mostly in South Asian newspapers such as Dhaka Courier, DNA, Financial Post, Hindustan Times, The Independent, Mint, The Nation, and The New Nation. The article may need improvement, but the topic easily meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This is a rather politically motivated deletion nomination.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that it's politically motivated? When it was nominated, it had two meekly sources in it which were not even accessible and it still has two meekly sources in it, both Bangladeshi, they cannot support a third-party point of view. Instead of saying that nomination is politically motivated, why don't you improve it with sources.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it says on your user page that you support the current ruling party in Pakistan, which co-incidentally 2 weeks back, became the first Pakistani government to adopt genocide denial as a policy. However, several Pakistani sources also confirm the notability of this militia group.--Akbar the Great (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, the notability of this group is easily asserted by a quick Google Book search. Try it yourselves; . For example: "auxiliary paramilitary force (the Razakaars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams) of 50,000" --Soman (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.