Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat

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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat

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

Deprodded without any explanation. No evidence of this organization satisfying WP:ORG or WP:GNG in the article, or in a Google Search; it's a borderline A7. The article also has some extremely questionable claims as well, as it makes reference to it being a violent organization without a shred of evidence. Tagged as non-notable since August 2013, unreferenced since August 2009, until the IP removed those tags as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization does exist, as I found a single source published by Scarecrow Press - the Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism. It is literally a dictionary of almost every extremist Muslim group in history; this group has one small paragraph along with hundreds of others. Unless we can agree that all 500 or whatever groups in that book are notable, this should be deleted as that is literally the only proof I can even find that the subject is actually real. No news or published info about activity, members, notoriety, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 13 February 2014 (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.