Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhajir Sooba


 * 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 redirect to Jinnahpur. Actually, consensus is to merge this somewhere else, but editors will need to figure out where to. In the meantime I'm redirecting to the most-mentioned possible target.  Sandstein  17:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhajir Sooba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article came to my attention after an IP began making claims that this article was a hoax and vandalism (see page history and this discussion on my talk page). After discussing the issue with the IP, I looked for sources and couldn't find any at all. Even the sources in the article do not mention the words "Muhajir Sooba", and I think that it either fails GNG for complete lack of notability or should be redirected or merged with another article (the IP thought it should be redirected to Mohajir people). Nominating for AFD to get community input.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it was a pure Vandalism (Hoaxing Vandalism), and Political hoax (Hoax), Defamation, derogatory, and I had just only AGF to point out the misconceptions, hoax, utopian, buried topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.156.252 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "hoax"? Your use of that word is very confusing, and you never explained it when Oshwah asked either - could you please do so now? There is nothing defamatory or derogatory (much less libellous) in the article, so those claims are also very confusing. Please explain what you mean by those words (and note that Wikipedia includes topics that many people find distasteful - in fact, I don't think there is anybody in the world who won't be offended by one or more of the topics we have articles on. That does not mean that those articles should not exist.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral(Assume good faith) Merge to Mohajir people or to Sindh as suggested by bonadea, hoax I mean (Hoaxing Vandalism) and Political hoax as well, in other mean political gain, blackmailing in a politics to gain the advantages. It was a political advantages gaining from the government, as the hoaxing group had already more perks and privileges they had enjoyed since 1947. After the government resolved their concerns then the issue became dead and it does not exists anymore. There are examples of Refugees in the world that refugees migrate from one land to another due to various reason but it has never been happened that the separate province had been built for the Refugees , refugees had always been merged into the native community, and that is also the case with refugees after migration from India to Pakistan during and after the partition of Indian subcontinent. actually Pakistan was never been the demand by all Muslims in Indian subcontinent but it was coined by the northern India Muslims (in the North India these Muslims were in minority; whereas the Muslim of India who were in majority in Indian Subcontinent states/provinces did never demanded for separate country, Abul Kalam Azad had rejected a separate small country for the Indian Muslim whether he wanted to a united India which had been governed by the Muslims since centuries) who loss their perks and privileges in the British India. When these so call Mohajirs came to Pakistan they did got all the evacuee property left by Hindus of Sindh, Since then they had been enjoyed all the advantages of the new land.61.5.156.252 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See, this is exactly why I asked for your definition of "vandalism" and "hoax". So, it appears that (by what you said above) the article subject is a hoaxing group, or a group of people that exist, but create "hoaxes" or (probably by your definition) miss-statements of truth in order to gain unfair advantages or receive things in return that they wouldn't otherwise have. This is entirely different from hoaxes themselves, which was what I was trying to figure out from you. I'm not going to lie to you: there were some editors here who believed that you were pushing a point of view. I believed that you were, too. But, I will always honor and abide by the principal of giving others the benefit of the doubt.


 * Articles that are about hoaxes are allowed on Wikipedia; it is not vandalism or a hoax to write about a hoax. It is a hoax in Wikipedia's definition of policy if the article itself was completely lying about the existence of something that doesn't actually exist. Writing about Santa Clause, something most parents "lie" to their children about until they figure out that he isn't real (sorry to break it to you, Bonadea, but your parents were eating the cookies you left on Christmas Eve :-P), isn't a violation of policy. Now, if the article was created and said that he was real, then that would be a hoax (and essentially vandalism). I know that you were beginning to grow frustrated with my questions, but editors ask me for help with resolving difficult and heated disputes for a reason. It's because I take the time to ask these questions if they need to be asked; they're very important! They help me to determine how you define certain words and terms we use here and why you believe an article meets them, and they help me to investigate your claims correctly and explain the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are not being understood correctly.


 * All of this aside, I will acknowledge that the revision of the article that was previously published here appears to be a "hoax"; It's unreferenced and, by your explanation, is describing the very thing that this group of people falsely fictionalize to others. This revision is not a hoax, as it describes the group of people that lie about the very thing that the previous revision was stating was true. All of THAT aside, there doesn't appear to be references that describe this group of people at all, and I don't think that they're notable enough (per GNG) to have its own article. Hence, it is being discussed here.


 * There was a lot of information and a lot of different issues and misinterpretations of policy definitions that I had to figure out. It's important to know that this is how dispute resolution should work; if done 100% correctly, even the most difficult or complicated dispute can be resolved and proper action taken! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Perception/assumptions by some editors are not true as I didn't intended such things, I have not pushed anyone to a point of view, however I was only being a netural and I gave the explains why its subject to Vandalism, and Political hoax or political gain, it was issue, which is no more existed, it has been buried. I was only pointing out that such topics does not qualifies for the standalone articles here on Wikipedia. Regards... (.....)
 * You have acknowledged the concerns raised by me, there is no sound proof as no any given reference mentioned topic title and its important and its also not justified why the topic is important the title of the article also does not justifies the reason why its important. I had initially suggested that either it should be deleted or merged to the relevant articles. You would have been very glad that you have achieved the success by asking THIS IP, well I also congratulates you all, but friends as I saw the history of that article I saw it was useless content, sometimes I observed it was a vandalism, to resolve it I did what I felt was good enough. Any way I still thinks that article does not bears to be existed at all, So its suggested it should be speedily deleted or merged. Thanks (The IP(Intelligent Person))


 * Merge to Sindh. Hopefully some editors who are knowledgeable about Pakistani topics will weigh in, in addition to the IP above, but while we are waiting for that: the article talks about two partly different things, first about a political movement to create a separate province for the Muhajir people, and second about that province itself. The fact that the movement exists is well-sourced in Dawn (newspaper) (dawn.com), which appears to be a thoroughly reliable source, and all the existing sources confirm the fact that there has been a proposal to divide Sindh, but that it was rejected in the Sindh Assembly. The name of the proposed province is not mentioned in the sources, as Oshwah observes, which means that the current name of the article looks like it might be original research. I haven't actually searched for spelling variations, which is always necessary when looking for sources for names that have been transcribed from other writing systems, but it is perhaps telling that Dawn.com doesn't mention the name of the proposed province at all. I suspect, based on the IP's information, that this is a minority proposal trying to use Wikipedia to gain more legitimacy (especially since the article was rewritten to make it look as if the province actually existed!) and I think it's probably not notable enough for a standalone article. Since it is a proposal to divide Sindh province, and since there are sources for it, I do feel that the info could be moved to the article about Sindh. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Muttahida Qaumi Movement. My talk page was also 'accosted' by the IP, and after further investigation, I've found a number of disconcerting edits by them, but more of that later. So, first off, this topic seems to be highly charged and politically divisive, but that being said, there is no way that the page would meet the requirements of a hoax or vandalism, not even close. I do notice that the page was subject to an edit war in October 2014, with the first shot being the addition of this, which was seemingly reverted on political grounds. So, given the creation of an independent province is an actual political objective of the MQM, I would suggest that the page be created as a separate topic of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement page. Now, an investigation of the IP's edits reveals a history of politically motivated vandalism, starting with his very first edits, here and here. His first edit on the page in question was this, where he deleted by insertion, followed by tagging with a CSD with no reason attached. It was shortly after declined by an administrator. The IP then blanked the page which I immediately reverted. He then blanked the page again and created a redirect, which was then reverted by Oshwah. (Hence why the IP rushed to our talk pages about 10 min later). I passed the hot potato to Oshwah, the consummate negotiator that he is, who patiently negotiated with the IP before deciding to achieve consensus by bringing the matter here. Technically the IP should have already been banned for 3RR with 6 reverts, but we have been very considerate in giving the IP significant latitude. I also think Oshwah should be commended for his amazing fortitude and patience in dealing with a difficult issue. David.moreno72 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: In the province under reference there exists a division of Rural and Urban with a ratio of 60:40. This is the proof of administrative division.  Therefore two tiers of a unit seem to be logical and sustainable.  In this scenario page be kept separately. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Nannadeem, The division ratio you have mentioned is the jobs division ration between the urban and rural, in real such geographical division does not exists. So its requested do not mislead. Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You stated "Under reference division ration 60:40", I have gone through the references and could not find evidence of such claims; Even I could not find the title of article Muhajir Sooba, which is not mentioned in the references.Jogi 007 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Brother Jogi 007 Neither I have discussed geography nor the page title. In the interest of encyclopedia I am attempting to save the contents/page.  Besides I am not certain which reference have you talked about 60:40 ratio.  60:40 ratio is fact, please  see Merit/Provincial/Regional quotas for recruitment to civil posts Sl. No.13 of Civil Establishment Code (ESTACODE), in addition to page Quota System in Pakistan one more link, here


 * Comments: Your statement “In the province under reference there exists a division of Rural and Urban with a ratio of 60:40.” What do you mean by under reference which reference you were talking about which you have asked me, the reference I mentioned articles references, where as you have given the external links for 60:40 ration, which I have told you is the ratio of job distributions, yes it’s a fact for job distribution for rural and urban but it’s not a geographical distribution ratio.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Table-I: Area & population of Administrative units by Rural/Urban: 1951-1988 Censuses for the Province of Sindh, see here provide total population of the province @ 3,04,39,893 with a breakup of 1,56,00,031 (rural) and 1,48,39,862 (Urban) in 1998 Census. Thus 60:40 ratios are self explanatory question and route cause of disturbed urbanization.  I think it is two wings of a units and needs solution on the basis of logic and equity instead of dealing with adhoc arrangement.  Nannadeem (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: It’s the job of assemblies and legislators to balance that equity, but it does not qualify that two separate articles with different name be kept on Wikipedia. So the editors have voted for the merging the article with the relevant articles.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarification (1) The province under reference - I mean Sindh Province. (2) I have already stated that "neither I have discussed geography nor the page title. Now for your satisfaction, it is submitted that: if there is one province and two divisions of quotas then geography may be defined in like manner of Urban and Rural distribution of quota where all cities except Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur are considered rural Sindh.  For detail of admin Divisions please go through Divisions of Pakistan and List of cities in Sindh.  Nannadeem (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jinnahpur, which also demonstrate the same topic, I reached here by the Watchlist of the page.Jogi 007 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jinnahpur Agree with Jogi don, subject remains the same. Both Jinnahpur and Muhajir Sooba refer to same geographic piece of land, were demanded by the same political party for same/similar reasons. No need to have a separate article. -- S M S Talk 06:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments: Page Jinnahpur also reveals Jinnahpur a conspiracy (allegation) which has also been denied, whereas wing (e.g. Sindh-I or II) in a province is a demand.  If an allegation and a political move seems to have like routes and strategies then merger to Jinnahpur appears to be rational, otherwise it will be a misnomer.  Nannadeem (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: Jinnahpur was also intended for the same purpose, so therefore its suggested to merge article 'Muhajir Sooba' to 'Jinnahpur ' as per Wikipedia rules two separate articles with same objectives and topics should not be kept. you mentioned ''Sindh-I or II, which is not the name of article. first making a conspiracy (or according to your point of view 'allegations') then masking it as a political move for the same intentions and objectives make no difference. So its clear that two separate articles with same objectives can not be kept separately on Wikipedia so they should be merged.Jogi 007 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) Karachi Soba was first launched by one of the leader of National Awami Party (NAP), Mr. Mahmoodul Haq Usmani, when the Capital of Pakistan was shifted from Karachi to Islamabad. At that time there was no MQM or Dr. Saleem Haider, President of Mohajir Iteehad Tehreek, I think well known initiator of Mohajir Sooba, for details please read this and this


 * (2)The MQM has policy for division of Sindh on administrative grounds. I quote from the contents published in The Nation (Pakistan) newspaper on 10-Nov-2014  Quote:The slogans of PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari against the division of Sindh getting close to the people of Karachi with the MQM proposal of Sindh 1 and Sindh 2.  Apparently MQM Chief Altaf Hussain has cleared that the party doesn’t want to divide Sindh rather than seeking administrative division for the prosperity of Sindh and Pakistan and it could be named as North Sindh, South Sindh, East Sindh and West Sindh, said Ameen. Quote over, link is here  + more links  & .  In view of this history the merger appears to be out of context.  Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As you have stated above there is no evidence for the separate province, it was political issue for some time, There have been severe allegations on MQM for its treason, disloyalty with Pakistan, Money laundering cases, Karachi Operation, its links with external spy agencies i.e RAW South Asian Terrorism P{ortal    ,and its better to merge the article with one of the above merging suggestion. Both Jinnahpur and Muhajir Sooba relate to same geographic piece of land, were demanded by the same political party for same/similar reasons. No need to have a separate article   Jogi 007 (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect perhaps instead because if there are concerns about this IP who mentioned all of these claims and there's nothing to suggest otherwise, we can redirect if there is the substance and need for it. SwisterTwister   talk
 * Redirect Delete or merge with Jinnah pur. Even better if merged with MQM Waqaroptimist (talk) 04:26, 11 June 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.