Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business incubators 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 merge to Business incubator. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Business incubators in Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

mentioning a bunch of non-notable entities. I dont get the logic behind such a list.. WP:LISTCRUFT.. Saqib (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Not even in the remote bit encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are other standalone articles existing like this, this and this. So, there's no harm in creating this list as WP:LC suggests that In general, a "list of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. And I have also made some other tweaks in the article and also in categories . But one thing I don't understand is that, why these things are not first discussed in talkpage of the article, instead of straightaway nominating for deletion, considering that the article was hardly a day old.    M A A Z     T A L K   03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the entities mentioned on the page does not seems to have their own standalone articles so such a list is unwarranted IMO. --Saqib (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4 of them mentioned are stand-alone articles:

About the others that I have mentioned, IMO are significant enough to be mentioned in the list, as its likely that they will also have individual articles in near-future. I don't think that's a big problem. The list is harmless.  M A A Z     T A L K   09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * National Incubation Center
 * P@SHA
 * Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority
 * Ignite (Pakistan)
 * Of these four entities you listed, I suspect two should be deleted right away because they fails to meet WP:CORPDEPT. I will nom them for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you can nom them for deletion, but ethically speaking, you should do it after the result of this Afd. As you have already voted here(in an article) that involves those 4 articles. The reason why I say that, is because it would almost seem deliberate on your side, i.e to sabotage this article while its result is proceeding.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On what basis would you say this? I don't think there is any restriction to remove or delete ill-sourced or non-notable stuff during AfD's. --Saqib (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, you can nom them for deletion. I said, ethically speaking. IMO, nominating them during this Afd would feel like a deliberate attempt of sabotage and somewhat disruptive to this AfD.   M A A Z     T A L K   19:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Be noted I've not yet nominated any page for deletion, except Ignite (Pakistan) which was obvious advertising and therefore speedy deleted. But I am planning to AfD at least two pages listed above which I believe does not pass WP:N, but unsure when.. If you feel I'm trying to disrupt this AfD, I'm happy to allow this nom run its course first. --Saqib (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)     and Telenor Velocity. These articles will also exist independently in near future. In light of above arguments, and the increasing trend/notability of start-ups in Pakistan, I think it would be fair to keep this article.  M A A Z     T A L K   20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Ma'az is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * I've actually found more notable incubator articles in Pakistan with many reliable sources like Invest2Innovate


 * Delete. Business incubators are notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything to demonstrate independent notability for business incubators in Pakistan. I would say merge to the Business incubator article, but the article is a list that doesn't call itself a list so there's nothing to merge. Marianna251TALK 23:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) - vote changed, see below Marianna251TALK 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What about all the reference mentioned in the article.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Business incubators is also synonymous with startup incubators.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a list does not exist for other countries.. why for Pakistan? --Saqib (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is the WP:OSE argument, which revolves around both validity and non-validity. I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N, which is a better argument, and on that basis, it should be kept.   M A A Z     T A L K   15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Mine one was not an argument.. I am just asking you why do we need such a list for Pakistan? I'm just curious why we don't have such a list for United States which has around 50 and United Kingdom which as over 15 notable incubators. why for Pakistan? And I'm just curios, what made you say "Business incubators in Pakistan" is notable whereas it is not, clearly. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, the other lists can also be made. No rules against it.   M A A Z     T A L K   15:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually no. the lists cannot be easily made. Had this been the case, we should have such lists. Just recently, List of business incubators in Ghana was deleted because such lists does not meet WP:LISTN. & You said " I think the article is notable, and passes Wikipedia guidelines per WP:N" please explain how? --Saqib (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ma'az - the main business incubator article has a section that lists notable business incubators. At the moment it has a distinct Western bias, but that can easily be updated by people like yourself. This article, aside from the list of incubators, has nothing of substance - I can sum it up in the sentence "Business incubators are increasing in Pakistan". So what? The same thing is happening across the world. Personally, I would have considered nominating this article for speedy deletion using critera WP:A10 ("Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic"). For the article to stay, it needs to have something notable about Pakistani business incubators that does not apply to business incubators in the rest of the world - and even then I would argue that it would be better incorporated into the main article. Marianna251TALK</b> 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia is hard on these articles. If an article is within the guidelines, it can be created. I think there can be separate lists of business incubators of other countries as well, as its within the guidelines.   M A A Z     T A L K   19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The indentation of your comments was a little unclear, so I've amended it. Hope that's okay. Back on topic: it's perfectly true that articles within the guidelines can be created and retained, but you have yet to explain how this article falls within the guidelines and why you believe it is notable. I've explained why I believe that the notability of business incubators does not automatically confer notability on business incubators in Pakistan, and without that, this article lacks any notable content. That would be the case with any article about business incubators in any other nation, so suggesting that other lists could be made is a moot point. Please can you explain why you think business incubators in Pakistan fulfil the GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I clearly don't agree with you - convince me. <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 22:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for clearing the indentations. I think the article passes WP:GNG per sources mentioned in the article, and I think, the sources do in fact talk about business or startup incubators in Pakistan. Having said that, I also think there are multiple reasons for keeping an article. Like I said in the beginning, the article also passes WP:LC, therefore the article does fall in Wikipedia guidelines.   M A A Z     T A L K   17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to merge to Business incubator following updates made to the article. Ma'az has added sufficient sources for me to feel that there is now some content of substance there, but not enough to warrant its own article. If we're going by WP:LC, the sentence "The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article" seems apropos. The business incubator article only has a few incubators listed, all Western - it's nowhere near saturation. I would suggest updating the list in the main article and adding a section about global trends/national variations on business incubators for the rest of the content. <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair assessment; and I finally got my indentations right here. :)   M A A Z     T A L K   16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.