Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustaqbal 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   delete. mostly due to lack of sources and notability JForget  01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mustaqbal Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete There is no evidence of notability. The article gives no sources at all, despite having been tagged for independent sources for a month and three quarters. My searches have produced mainly primary and/or unreliable sources (the party's own website, facebook, twitter, blog posts, etc). I did find one brief news report on the party, but this does not seem like enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. In addition to this the article is written largely from the party's own point of view, telling us what the party claims and aims. (Earlier versions of the article were unambiguous promotion: what we ahve now is very much toned down, but still far from neutral.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Keep Actually I've heard a bit about this party.. there's also a lot of circulation about it on the internet. That news link really goes into it. Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I've heard a bit about this party" is not a reliable source. Does "a lot of circulation about it on the internet" refer to the blog posts, twitter, etc which I referred to, or is there something more reliable? If there is something more reliable then please give links to it. As for "that news link", I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the link to Google news in the "Find sources" list at the head of this discussion, then the result I got by clicking on it was "Your search ... did not match any documents." Or does it mean the article I linked to above? If so then it fairly briefly tells us what the chairman of the party thinks, and that is all. It certainly does not "really go into it". It is some coverage, but not substantial enough on its own to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment 15 days after the nomination there are still no sources cited at all, unless you count an external link to the party's own site. Web searches still fail to turn up anything significant: only the party's own site, facebook, twitter, blogs, a marketing site, etc. Still no evidence of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If it has not sources (and i can't find any) then its not notalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Founded in 2009, this political party hasn't received the necessary secondary coverage to pass Notability. The article fails Verifiability because the information in the article cannot be verified. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2010 (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.