Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taseer Bashir

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. While there seems to be a lot of sources, it's near impossible to verify if they actually discuss the subject, in what depth, and if the citations match up to the content they're paired with. ansh 666 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Bashir

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

Not much coverage in WP:RS. Almost sourced by self-crafted sources. Fails to verify per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG. Created by SPA User:Maria Jackson. Greenbörg (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are cited but are they only passing references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of cited sources are offline therefore it is very difficult to cross check. I have tried to find on the subject in online RS but to no avail so unless someone provide here online RS, delete vote from me. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGF. If we take the cited references at face value then the subject appears to be notable. Just because references are not via google or in Urdu and not in English is not grounds for deletion. I think this one really needs some input from someone who is fluent in Urdu etc. Aoziwe (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe:Article is not properly sourced. If they know then they must add which page of the newspaper discuss the subject. We can't just keep any article when we can't verify per WP:V. Störm (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly promotional ("His services to humanity are formally recognised by a number of notables"), which leads me to not assume good faith in the sources, which I can't check. Sandstein 16:26, 10 November 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.