Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehreek Labaik 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. A number of possible sources were presented here, but other editors did not feel they satisfied WP:ORGDEPTH.

As an aside, while I think 's comments were a little edgy, claiming that they rose to the level of infringing WP:CIVIL seems a little over-sensitive. So, I'm going to take one, cut it in half, and distribute the pieces evenly :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tehreek Labaik Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. No coverage found.  Greenbörg  (talk)  07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Do you google before initiating an AfD? There is plenty of coverage of the organization. Just have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZ2dgz0pwk --Soman (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequate notability. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 18:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject fails WP:GNG without any doubt. The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts. Those don't even come close to passing WP:IRS, nor are they sufficient to support notability on their own, nor have they even been sustained enough to support notability if (in theory) blogs and user videos were suddenly accepted as valid sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm I the only one that googles in the AfD process? see, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --Soman (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, you need to keep the Civility in mind because both of your comments above were decidedly uncivil. Even if you find the views of others strange or poorly thought-out, the policy still stands.
 * Secondly, the links you've provided still don't establish notability because only a few of them are actually about the subject. Those which are about the subject are tied to two separate protests against the religious affairs ministry, and those protests (as also established in the sources you provided) also included other groups - thus there is no specific coverage focusing on the subject itself, Tehreek Labaik Pakistan. Additionally, the majority of the links you just posted only mention the subject in passing, in most cases only a single time.
 * It's good that you're viewing even the comments of other editors with a skeptical eye on an AfD, but there are two problems here. The first is that you misunderstood the view of myself (I can't speak for GorgeCustersSabre): the issue isn't that I didn't search on Google, but that I did search and didn't find any information about the group itself. There were protests which occurred and weren't about Tehreek Labaik Pakistan itself, but rather were a part of wider anti-religious affairs ministry protests including multiple religious groups, not just this one. Now, that still doesn't mean my view is right, but it does mean that you have a significant misunderstanding of another editor's (my) view. You could have avoided that simply by asking me why I wrote what I did instead of jumping to conclusions.
 * The second problem is that neither of your comments have been polite, and that's definitely a cause for concern. The first impression I got is that you're either a fan of the article's subject pushing hard for its inclusion, thus indicating that your objectivity is compromised; or that your general manner of dealing with disagreement is to question the competence of anyone who disagrees with you, thus indicating that your temperament precludes a serious discussion.
 * That impression might be wrong, but it's reasonable as a first impression. You should give some serious consideration to future responses, and perform your own due diligence in the way of not jumping to conclusions about what other editors are doing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was not to be uncivil, but I did question the rationale of both the original AfD nomination as well as your 'delete' vote. As a reminder, the nominator stated No coverage found, a statement that could only be true in case WP:BEFORE had not been conducted. The same editor had issued a number of other Pakistan-related AfDs in the recent past which similar arguments. You wrote "The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts", a statement that is clearly incorrect as the organization is covered in various large media in Pakistan such as Dawn, Jang, Mashriq, Tribune, Nation, etc.. I'm sorry if the way I worded your comment hurt your feelings, but at the same time you'd need to recognize that your initial comment turned out to be factually incorrect. As per whether coverage is sufficient to consider an organization as notable, there is no clearcut line (as is often manifested in AfD debates), but it must be noted that some of the links to large media outlets presented above do deal with the organization as the main focus of the respective articles (such as and ) --Soman (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet ORGDEPTH, specifically there isn't sufficient depth of coverage to make it "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization".--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:44, 14 September 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.