Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maimoona Murtaza Malik


 * 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. The arguments to keep consists of, "It's hard to find sources, but they must exist", and "she exists in databases, but I can't provide specific links to where". Those aren't enough. Should better sources come to light in the future, this can always be reconsidered. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Maimoona Murtaza Malik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable enough  Green Cricket   TALK  10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  10:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  10:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural Comment -- pinging -- an AfD w/o a rationale can be speedy closed.  Assuming a mistake and giving an hour or so to correct until closing. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC) some rationale has been added. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- mentioned in "The Nation" (2013) and the coverage in Arab News suggests an important public intellectual and raising political figure; head of an international school is not enough for PROF#C6, but it adds something. These would not be enough sources for a keep for a western researcher, but given the difficulty of finding sources and WP:BIAS I think that the likelihood is that we are missing much more in the Arab and Urdu speaking press. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when has there been a Wikipedia policy that says that if sources can't be found it can be assumed that they exist? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not enough evidence of any sort of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with . She pops up in databases, too, but I'm only seeing mentions in English language databases. She's obviously a pretty important TV personality and for a Pakistani woman to support women's rights on TV, that's pretty significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * which databases? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Gale and EBSCO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Links please. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
 * No links provided indicate lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the end, it comes down to sources. This AfD has gone on for several weeks, suggesting there's not much more to be found...and what's there at present is certainly inadequate. Glad to change positions if some additional WP:RS can be found. Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete a paltry 2 hits a google news search. No hits at all in a google books search. Ergo, she is not notable.  (Note: I am aware that such searches do not turn up everything that's out there, but when people are notable, they reliably turn up at least some sources).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - wishful thinking not withstanding, not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:39, 22 March 2016 (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.