Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjuman Talaba-e-Islam


 * 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 No consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anjuman Talaba-e-Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, the ICG document referenced says "Although the Barelvi JUP has lost most of its political significance, the affiliated Barelvi Anjuman Talaba Islam (ATI) student group has support on many university and college campuses.276" --Soman (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply- One source simply doesn't establish notability. Mind reviewing Notability (organizations and companies)? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if one source says the group has a wide base at universities, it's only one source. Multiple sources without relation to one another are needed to establish notability, and this subject seems to lack that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to List of student federations of Pakistan, unless reliable sources beyond the sources there and in this article are found - I suspect they exist, but I also think that they may be difficult to find within the period of this AfD (most, I suspect, are likely to be in Urdu). While currently provided sources do not seem to provide enough notability for a standalone article, the ICG document, in addition to the sources already there (or indeed even without them), is adequate for a short section in a more general article. PWilkinson (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment by the nominator: Subject is lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability of the subject, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 11 April 2014 (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.