Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Education system in 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   delete, and for future reference, if the sole editor of an article removes the PROD template without explanation that does not constitute the PROD being "denied", but rather vandalism. - file lake  shoe  15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad Education system in pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Also, this is basically an attack page aimed at the Pakistan education system. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - why couldn't this have been speedied? --  role player 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Because there isn't an appropriate criterion, and because the PROD was denied. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. We have, or should have, an article on education in Pakistan.  I don't see anything here that could be used to improve it.  This might be a page that exists only to disparage its subject, and as such subject to speedy deletion under that criterion, assuming that the educational system of Pakistan is an entity subject to that criterion's protection. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete An opinion piece, not an encyclopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly an opinion piece: I think it meets the criteria for speedy delete. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Opinion of author; even the title is POVy...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There are quite narrow criteria for speedy. There weren't any that fitted, so the attempts to get it speedied were declined. (Nonsense is one of the tightest definitions - very few things tagged nonsense actually fit the criteria.) Opinion, original research, yes. Proddable, or AfDable but not speedy. Attack page? Very possibly - but that doesn't seem to apply to systems in the definition given for G10. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, insulting, badly written, bad essay. There is no useful information here or possibility to repair this article. Wikiweek (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: per SOAP, OR, fuck this fucking essay. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/ His English is much more sure-footed than my Urdu will ever be.  They must be doing something right over there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, might be worth closing per WP:SNOW. Bob talk 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not even wrong, it is refuted by verifable facts in Education in Pakistan and Nursing in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (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.