Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh


 * 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. We need to have sources to keep an article. Without any sources, we cant even meet WP:V, which is an inviolable requirement. WP:N imposes additional requirements, but without sources, the inability to establish WP:V makes this a non-starter.

Note that there's no requirement for sources to be in English. Other languages are fine, and if you're not able to read that language, a variety of auto-translation tools are available, and Translators available can help you find human translation assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage in WP:RS. Indusian is in habit of creating such articles without reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only hits on Google are a couple of mentions of his death in the Hindu Times' "on this day in history" column, plus a blog post. Not proven to be significantly notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate the notability here because the literature in this field is likely to be in either Sindhi (a google search for the full name in Sindhi returns a high (for the context) number of hits) or in Urdu (I can't read either), and sources in English aren't generally likely to be found. And if any are found, as the previous comment testifies, then this is likely to be another indication of notability. And speaking of editors and their habits, the nom does appear to have one for nominating articles without seeming to appreciate the need for WP:BEFORE. – Uanfala 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You may continue your inclusionism campaign. We here follow WP guidelines which requires every subject to be verified per WP:V in WP:RS and should pass WP:GNG. Burden is on the creator of the article to find Sindhi-language sources not on us to go to Sindh and find coverage in old papers. Störm   (talk)  15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (consult)  21:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete based on our clear criteria on this and what's shown isn't in that scope. SwisterTwister   talk  00:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. There may be sources in other languages, but in the absence of evidence we shouldn't just assume so. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2017 (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.