Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veteran Pakistani Catholic teachers


 * 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. As to the list, but no consensus about the individual articles; they can be renominated separately.  Sandstein  15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Veteran Pakistani Catholic teachers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable list, of non-notable teachers. Emeraude (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, all linked from the main page, because they are non-notable teachers:




 * Keep (without prejudice to individual AfDs for the articles listed collectively). Pakistani media seems to make much more of a public deal of teachers' careers than the media in Western countries would. If the sources treat them as notable, then they're notable.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Do not meet wikipedia.en's standards for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep The nominator mentions non-notability, but I see a set of references cited on all of the articles listed. As Andreas Philopater, I'm inclined to a keep.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no good reason for this arbitary grouping by both religion and time of working as a teacher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree, this is arbitrary. Why not teachers that have worked 10 years, letter carriers that have worked 35 years, health workers that have worked 13 years, etc.? Article is basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all of the teacher articles, there are multiple reliable references for each of them and at least one or two of the references for each are in depth about the subject. I am neutral on the list, I think it should at least be renamed, "Pakistani Catholic teachers", as I don't see the point of only including those with 50 years experience (except that it prevents the list from including people who aren't notable for their teaching in Pakistan but are Catholic and did teach in Pakistan). Smmurphy(Talk) 00:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This list of teachers does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (without prejudice) the articles about individuals bundled into this discussion, which is about a list article. Those articles must stand or fall on their own merits.
 * Delete the article under discussion, i.e. Veteran Pakistani Catholic teachers. It fails WP:LISTN - it shows no sign of having been covered by reliable independent sources. It's also WP:ARBITRARY - why 50 years rather than 49 or 51? (FWIW I don't think rearranging the three adjectives into the five other possible orders would make the topic notable either.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:04, 22 February 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.