Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz-e-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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz-e-Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No organization is considered inherently notable per WP:ORGSIG. The organization must have a effect on the society in order to consider notable. I think this ORG was founded in 2012 and was dissolved in 2013 having NULL effect on the society. Secondly, An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it per WP:INHERITORG which is clearly the case here. This ORG is only notable because of a notable person. This ORG also fails WP:ORGDEPTH and fails WP:ORGCRIT. We can easily cover one line information on the person who founded this organization. I would urge to avoid the keep comments if you have any support for the founder of organization. Thanks,  Greenbörg  (talk)  10:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Za  wl  16:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: wow, I would have thought a discussion like this would have elicited a bigger furore! But yeah, notability isn't inherited - just because its founder is notable doesn't mean that it is notable.  As nom says, any coverage independent from its creator is mostly passing, failing coverage depth guidelines.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen many AfD disussions about political parties in Western countries where it has been accepted without question that a political party that has contested a national election is automatically notable. I suppose that merely being a party taking part in a national election in the fifth most populous country in the world, but which is mostly populated by brown people outside the Western world, doesn't qualify this for similar consideration. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per notability criteria, there is plenty of coverage on Khan's TTP., , , , , , , , , , , , , , --Soman (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the standards that are used at AfD for political parties contesting national elections in much smaller countries inhabited mostly by white people in the West. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to these standards please? This seems like a classic case of playing the race card per your comment about race.  And such minor parties often elicit more significant coverage, maybe it's systematic bias, but this is AfD, not a place to right great wrongs.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Doesn't have to satisfy anything else. And notability is not temporary. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:06, 3 October 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.