Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lab-e-Mehran

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The result was Nomination withdrawn - Thanks to Insight 3 for finding sources I was not able to. Cheers y'all. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )}⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lab-e-Mehran

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Can't find sources on it, seems to fail general notability guidelines and geographical place notability guidelines.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )}⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pakistan. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )}⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — passes WP:GEOLAND. The park is legally recognized, runs under Sukkur District administration: SHC orders officials to revive Sukkur’s Lab-e-Mehran Park, SC conducts hearing on Lab-e-Mehran Park case. Insight 3 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Insight 3 how does it pass WP:GEOLAND? It is a recognised place, but is it actually populated? Is it a disputed region? Is it a natural feature? It seems to be none of those things to me, as I don't think having a small hotel counts as "populated", I don't see how it's disputed, and it's not a natural feature given it was built. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. It being a legally recognised park isn't sufficient for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may look into the following sources:
General independent coverage:
Daily Times
Dawn
Friday Times
Urdu Point
National Geographic
Court case coverage regarding ownership and management of the park:
The Express Tribune
The News
All above sources are reliable and seems to me, the subject also passes WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst some of those are more passing mentions and not significant coverage, I think overall it does meet WP:GNG, so I'm changing my !vote. I mustn't have searched very well. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worth keeping, passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insight.VR _talk 05:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dues to sources mentioned by Insight 3. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:28, 28 August 2022 (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.