Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Women Muslim League

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 no consensus. So Why 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Women Muslim League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A political party estabilished 4 years ago. No sources for it (its members) winning any elections, participating in elections, having notable members, nothing except a source that it was established (rotted, archive: [1] - reads like a short press release). I am all for countering systemic bias etc., but political parties are not notable just by existing, and this one's total lack of coverage in the last 4 years suggests it is not yet (ever?) encyclopedic. Through a search through Pakistani sources could help? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, all I can find are article related to the party's existence or things like social media pages connected to it. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously Proded so not eligible for a "soft delete." Here's hoping for some kind of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's any English-language coverage, it's paywalled or offline. I can't find anything of substance on their activities (there's more on Rubina Shaheen than the org), and their social media presence is sparse on independent media. Urdu-language searchers might have better luck, but that range of material is inaccessible to this searcher. czar 05:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First women's political party in Pakistan = notable. I have added a few English references. There are more available in Urdu per the party's website as a start. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the sourcing warrants it. The ref on the party's creation is brief, and both the Daily Times (Pakistan) and Dawn (newspaper) have no significant coverage past that. What sources from the website are reliable and give any depth on the org for us to write a full treatment of the topic? czar 04:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam, Aamri2, Ahmed Nisar, Ahmer Jamil Khan, and Feroze Ahmad 2: Perhaps some of our Urdu speaking editors could help us figure out if any of the sources copied on the party's website are reliable, and if they give any substantial coverage about the party. Kaldari (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few of them briefly and the ones I've seen (Specifically, The Daily Subh and Daily Mashriq Peshawar) are both somewhat popular (Think: Toronto Sun to City News Toronto = Them to The Toronto Sun) and about as reliable as Pakistani newspapers can get (See Corruption in Pakistan), and they were covering the Pakistan Women Muslim League, but there are enough that they should be considered significantly covered. If you need details @Kaldari:, just ask. Aamri2 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamri2, thanks. What do they say beyond mentioning that the org exists? Almost all of the clippings are single, short paragraphs—usually significant coverage means that the subject is covered in depth, such that we could write a deep encyclopedia article using the sources alone. czar 23:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's keep in mind WP:NOBLE - it doesn't matter how worthy a cause this is. If there is nothing but press releases for its inauguration, it is (sadly) not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline > essay. I just read Aamri2's comment again mentioning "significantly covered". Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamri2: Could you provide us with the name of the party in Urdu? That might help track down additional sources. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is my considered opinion that all articles about verified political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections should be automatically kept, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of information that our readers have reason to expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I base this opinion upon the policy of Ignore All Rules (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to signify its notability Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aamri2 says the Urdu sources are reliable and it "should be considered significantly covered". I'm willing to take his word on it since I can't read the sources myself. I also think we should err on the side of caution here, per Carrite. Official political parties have a fair degree of inherent notability (even if our current guidelines don't say so). There's a good chance that when an election rolls around, people are going to be looking for information about this party, so even our current stub is probably better than nothing. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole lot of crystal ball in these keep arguments—the party hasn't won a seat in an election, right? I'm afraid that "significant coverage" quoted twice from Aamri2's post here refers to the newspapers indeed mentioning the party (as our English sources do) but without the depth with which we'd write an actual encyclopedia article about the org. All of the clippings on their website are short, and almost all are a single paragraph... Without more detail on what those clippings contain and perhaps the facts that are missing from this article, I don't see how we'd have an encyclopedia article, nevertheless sigcov. czar 03:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iagree with Carrite about this: we should be as inclusive as possible about political parties. It's the only way to avoid unconscious bias. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.