Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishtiaq Baig


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ishtiaq Baig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod declined because "there are sources", but extensive searching failed to find any. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the actual reason for declining WP:PROD deletion, rather than the lie in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me how "basic searches find plenty of sources" is not the same thing as "there are sources". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problematic bit was "extensive searching failed to find any". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My extensive searching failed to find any. I still don't see how that's a lie. I am the one who found nothing of import when I typed "Ishtiaq Baiq" into Google on my own computer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Typing a phrase into a Google web search is not extensive searching. Try the news search linked by the nomination procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The only sources I can find that are independent of the subject are passing mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2013 (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.