Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

[edit]

Naseem Rana

[edit]
Naseem Rana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TNT. There is absolutely nothing verifiable in this article and the one cited source goes to a compromised domain with no content. Searching on Google turns up shockingly little information: as far as I can tell he is mentioned in exactly two contexts: in a list of previous Directors General of ISI in recent news articles announcing the appointment of more recent holders of that position, and in writings about the Taliban that occasionally tangentially mention Naseem Rana as having been present during one or two events that took place during his tenure as DGISI. The alternative to deletion is reduction of the article to the following:

Naseem Rana is a Pakistani general who served as the director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1995 to October 1998.[1] He was reportedly present at a meeting between Prince Turki al-Faisal and Mullah Omar in 1998.[2]

Not even his birthdate or the Urdu spelling of his name seem to be verifiable (searching Google for نسيم رانا produces zero relevant hits), or for that matter whether he is still alive. I would say people need to find and add more sources (since surely they exist - this guy was supposedly an important military official involved in historic and much-studied events) but even if sources can be found, the current article is still WP:TNT bad so it's better to wipe it and leave open the possibility of starting fresh when/if more sources can be found. -- LWG talk 04:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Karachi

[edit]
Air Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Tons of press releases and churnalism but everything is routine coverage that falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing inherently notable about an airline so likely WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur)

[edit]
Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Part of the StayCalmOnTress SOCK farm created to circumvent the deletions of Green Entertainment and the name variations they have attempted to create. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

[edit]
Mir Yar Baloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aina Asif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.
For example:
These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.
Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the error. Here you go
[1] as rising star, [2] as a cast, [3] for his early drama roles, [4] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.
The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.
I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.
Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.
Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.
Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.
[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.
[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.
Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.
[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:
Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.
Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.
1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari (Poonchi)

[edit]
Pahari (Poonchi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drafification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if I'm seeing enough here for an article. The lone external link, presumably added to be a citation, does not contain the word "Pahari" at all after a Ctrl+F. Problems with my in-browser PDF reader, thanks to IP for making me re-check. Yes, there are two instances of the word in the document.[3] I also doubt the reliability of the publication Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society itself. If there is a citation that could back up something said in the article, it could be merged to Pahari language or Poonch District, India (depending on what can be said and sourced) but I'm not sure I'm seeing that right now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken in part and updated. Yes, it looks like the best merge/redirect target would be Pahari-Pothwari#Kashmir, Murree and the Galyat where it is already bolded. I'm not seeing much to merge that isn't already covered by the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Poonchi Pahari is a dialect of Pahari, falling under the Western Pahari group. It is closely related to other dialects such as Chibhali Pahari, Mirpuri Pahari, and Kotli Pahari. It is only a dialect and does not require a separate article or classification as a distinct language. Only a few words are pronounced differently, but they are easily understood by speakers of Chibhali or Mirpuri Pahari or any Pahari. Mutual intelligibility is high across these dialects. HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi HistoryofKashmir (talk), I am no expert in the History of Kashmir but did a bit of research and spoke to some scholars. Both Poonchi and Pothwari are closely related dialects, if not languages, but definitely are not identical or exactly the same. Pothwari is spoken in Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Mirpur, and surrounding areas in Pakistan, and by many in the UK, the Mirpuri immigrants.
    Poonchi is spoken mainly in Poonch, Rajouri districts of Jammu and Kashmir (India) and only in parts of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan), what we call PoK in India.
    Though similar linguistically, in a narrow sense there are vast variations in pronunciation, vocabulary and usage - basically influenced by the culture and histories on either side of the Line of Control and that makes it a major difference! My personal feeling... Davidindia (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The entirety of what the link says is:

    In the southern areas of Poonch and Rajouri, the primary language is Poonchi, also known as Pahari or Potohari. This language is part of the Lahnda/Punjabi family within the broader Indo-Aryan languages

    I'm no expert with this stuff (and can't judge the reliability of the source either), but is this just the same thing as Pahari-Pothwari? There's certainly nothing in the source to justify a separate article at the very least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 35.139.154.158 (talk) I am also no expert, but I guess one is an Indo iranian language and the other, Indo Aryan. Related but not the same. Davidindia (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added info and refs. Please see if it helps -notability. I feel it is an imp. article that can be developed as sources exist. I found thru unreferenced drive. thanks and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 June 2025

References

  1. ^ Shah, Sabir. "ISI gets its 25th chief: The saga of premier intelligence agency". The News.
  2. ^ Khan, Adnan. "What Pakistan would have gained by protecting bin Laden". Maclean's.
  3. ^ Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidindia, If I'm reading correctly the "History" section you've added, would it be fair to say that the first paragraph with bullets points and the second paragraph (as of today) are general history not specific to "Pahari (Poonchi)" but rather the section on Pahari-Pothwari? If so, (but I'm happy to be corrected) I think merge would still be the best option. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobby Cohn Yes, I think three articles on the same dialects may not augur well. But i did not get any consensus among my scholar friends in a language school. Please see my reply above. Basically they are different dialects spoken on either side of the Line of Control. I came across in random search during unref drive: #June25 I guess we should merge. thanks! Davidindia (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chattha Dynasty

[edit]
Chattha Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources give information about a clan by the name of the Chatthas but nothing about any sort of dynasty. There's already a separate article for the clan any under Chattha (clan) anyway.

Given that it is hard to find any substantive information from a reliable source about a "Chattha dynasty", I feel the article should be deleted and any relevant sources or info can be moved to the article relating to the clan. Ixudi (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are Multiple sources of a Chattha principality/state.
E.g 1. http://archive.org/details/TheEncyclopediaOfSikhism-VolumeIA-d
2.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rKkPEAAAQBAJ&dq=Chattha+rule&pg=PA83
3.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=lD9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Pir
As I explained while removing the deletion template. The name of this page is chosen as "Chattha Dynasty" because all of the ruling chieftains were from the same family.
The order being Nur Muhammad and his son Pir and Ahmad Chathha then Pir's son Ghualm Chattha and then Ghulams son Jan Chattha. So that is why "Dynasty" is an appropriate term.
If the name is the issue that can be discussed separately.
The article should stay on wikipedia space because it highlights a significant regional power in 18th-century Punjab and a less known prospect of punjabi history. Jatwadia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources all refer to a Chhatha clan. Not a dynasty. Ixudi (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 clearly mentions a Chattha state on page 449 if you read carefully.
Source 2 "Occupants of areas such as Rasulnagar on the border between the Punjab and afghan lands" this source proves they were independent rulers and not tributary to Afghans and had thier own teritories such as Rasulnagar.
Source 3 clearly mentions Pir Muhammad Chattha succeding a "principality" from his father.
Again the "dynasty" bit is not the issue the point being is that an independant Chattha state/principality existed which was ruled over by the same family that is why it is called a dynasty. Jatwadia (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 more sources
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206739/page/n220/mode/1up
Page 202 : "Ghulam Mahomed, who succeeded to the estate, succeeded also to the hatred of the Sukarchakias"
https://archive.org/details/resistance-themes-in-punjabi-literature/page/52/mode/1up?q=Chattha
Page 52 : "Of the Mohammadan tribes who Struggicd with most success to maintain their indépendence the most prominent were the Bhattis and Tarars in Hafizabad and the Chatthas in the Western half of the Wazirabad tehsil." Jatwadia (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2025-05 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

[edit]
Umair (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.
Regarding sources:
  • Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
  • The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
  • The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.
I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.
Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).
On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. [1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.
On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.[2]
For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.[3][4]
These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. [5]

References

  1. ^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
  2. ^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
  3. ^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
  4. ^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
  5. ^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".
There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [5]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from additional input. Contributors are also reminded to please refrain from using LLMs to generate walls of text, as they don't help anyone. Write your own arguments, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: I lean to agree with CNMall41; most of the articles with SIGCOV doesn't mention the author of the article, and all of them have promotional undertones. The Rolling Stones review is nice, checks all the boxes for a good sources (except the promotional vibes). If we can find another 2+ sources of the quality of this Rolling Stones article, we can save the article. This source also has a little bit specifically on Umair. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought the Rolling Stone reference was okay, but when I looked closer during a WP:BEFORE, I saw it was Rolling Stone India which is not Rolling Stone and has different (if any) oversight authority. Should be treated similar to Forbes India or Entrepreneur India. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to modify sources Delete: Having read the above discussions, read the article over and checked the sources, there are a few things that stand out to me. Firstly, the names of some of the article writers, namely refs 2, 5, 10 and 12, appear to not be the name of an actual person (Images Staff and Culture Haze). These sources are likely not bylined, as I believe has been mentioned previously. Secondly, ref 14 is a link to the artist's Spotify. Whilst Spotify isn't listed on WP:RS/PS, I would question whether it counts as a WP:RS. For these reasons, along with the article still potentially being a WP:Stub (it has the notice at the bottom of the article), I think that draftifying deleting the article to take care of these issues would be beneficial in strengthening arguments for keep is the appropriate action to take. 11WB (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @11wallisb The references contain nonsense parameters because this article is AI generated. Sources 4 and 16 contain utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URLs. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Yes, it appears you are correct for ref 16. That link was attributed by Google Analytics to ChatGPT as a source of traffic. I believe this relates to Wikipedia:AI-generated content - not yet a policy, but important nonetheless. Having seen this and the other things I mentioned previously shifts my opinion from draftify further to deletion pending further insight. 11WB (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to my last message, it appears ref 20 also links to Spotify. I've re-read the article, I'm still not confident in my own ability to detect LLM usage or other AI generated content, so I think it best I leave that to be confirmed by more experienced Wikipedians. Regardless of AI, this article definitely has issues that need addressing in its current form. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. Needs more coverage.
Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines regarding WP:NMUSIC. From a glance of the sources in the article, they do not discuss the subject significantly, or are adverts, or are profiles... And I could not find any valid sources on the search engine. I also opposed draftification unless there is a possibility that the subject will be notable in the future. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit, @Edard Socceryg I would like to make a request to you that we draftify this article. I hope we will find out more reliable references in Future. Behappyyar (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to draftification if you agree. But the draft should be submitted via AfC and should not be moved back to mainspace. But U have a concern about the long-term notability of this subject, which is why I think draftification is not ideal. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I understand your concern regarding long-term notability. Personally, I don’t have any issue with draftification as long as it goes through AfC and isn’t moved back to mainspace without proper review. Behappyyar (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AfC would definitely be advisable for this article. In fact, a complete non-AI written and sourced article would be much better, provided notability can be proven. My support goes to taking the article out of mainspace (for now) either way. 11WB (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you support. I will definitely work on it in draft space. Behappyyar (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that leaves it up to a single AfC reviewer (who I am one of) to decide the notability of a page that is already at deletion discussion. You are more than welcome to copy this to draft space but I would object to draftification as it would simply be recreated and we will be right back here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of research regarding the AI side of this. I understand this would not be the place to discuss my thoughts on that, so I will instead simply change my vote to match TE and Edard. I no longer believe returning the article to draft is appropriate. 11WB (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe draftification could allow space for improvement, especially if future sourcing strengthens notability. It avoids immediate deletion while keeping quality in check. Please reconsider your decision. Behappyyar (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors who !voted delete are okay with moving it to draft — especially you, as the nominator — then I don’t see any issue in doing so. Behappyyar (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Again, if it is moved to draft, it can wind right back in the mainspace and we would need another long discussion at AfD. Once deleted, it becomes eligible for speedy if moved back. So, the proper decision I feel would be deleted. You are free to copy the information over the draft space, but I feel the discussion here needs to be decided so we don't wind up here again next month. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I will not bring it to back to the main space by simply moving. I will follow the entire process and submit through AFC. Behappyyar (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again (please focus on what I am saying), you are more than welcome to copy a version of this to draft space where you can work on it. It's easy and accomplishes your goal. You are more than welcome to submit that draft to AfC. If the result here is draftify, it can be moved back by anyone, including an AfC reviewer (a single person) in circumvention of a deletion discussion. It is a waste of everyone's time here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CNMall41. My personal reason for switching my vote relates to the AI/LLM presence in the article, as I detailed from my initial observations on the 7th June. 11WB (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Files for deletion

[edit]

Category discussion debates

[edit]

Template discussion debates

[edit]

Redirects for deletion

[edit]

MfD discussion debates

[edit]

Other deletion discussions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1295475423"