Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasban e Islam


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pasban e Islam
Non-notable movement. No Google hits. Has remained a stub since creation on 29 April. — Aiden 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Jusjih 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; WP:V. Sandstein 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Keep, now sourced. Sandstein 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment definitely known to Google. The forms Pasban-e-Islam or Pasban-i-Islam seem more common. By my reading of the Jamestown piece, a redirect to Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (recently renamed Pasban-e-Sahaba it seems) is a possibility. [No, it isn't] There are certainly WP:V issues, and there's no WP:TERROR guidelines to determine the notability of terrorist groups. As the alleged (?) perpetrators of the bombings which killed 40 people (admittedly brown people, who don't count as Onion readers know), they are considerably more notable than the Real IRA in terms of bodycount. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

This relisting has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism as they seem likely to be in good position to evaluate. GRBerry 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even just a single group associated with a single bombing generates media and attention in their own corner of the world (coughBirmingham Sixcough). Since it was likely a small organisation, the article could likely cover the biographies of those known to be involved if it later comes to light, rather than separate articles, but nevertheless I'm still in favour of keeping it around. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Small group but caused notable event. Has sources and seems like a topic of importance to justify own article.--Auger Martel 11:42, 17 June 2006 (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.