Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Para 66


 * 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm   (talk)  17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Para 66

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a CONTENTFORK that could be easily merged to the Musharraf high treason case parent article. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As this paragraph is highly notable in itself since there are many sources available in which this paragraph is specifically discussed under the title "Para 66". Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 04:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No PAGESIZE issues though to warrant a separate standalone article. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Page size is not the only indicator or measurement for a separate article. Notability is a big measure and as I pointed out "Para 66" is in itself notable to warrant an article as you can see that there are countless sources which are discussing "Para 66" separately as a subject!


 * Here are few examples:
 * The route to para 66
 * Para 66 shocks all
 * Para 66 kerfuffle
 * Looking beyond para 66: Time for national introspection Sheriff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - <b style="color: White;">Nahal</b> (T) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - even if the subject is notable (I'm not going to add a comment either way) and it otherwise meets WP policy, the title of the article is terrible and needs clarification. I know that's not an AfD debate but just thought it was worth mentioning. Bookscale (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Close discussion as this is the wrong venue. The proposal here is for merging, not that an administrator should hit the "delete" button. Merging is discussed on the talk page of one of the articles concerned, not AfD, as any outcome does not need admin powers to implement. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.