Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmer Jamil Khan v. Federation of Pakistan

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 keep. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 01:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Jamil Khan v. Federation of Pakistan

This article has been created and written by the person, who claims to be involved in the case. This case has no notability. Hundreds of cases have been registered with various courts of Pakistan, of whom Bytes for All has notable coverage in this regard. This article fails in verification and is a blatant advertisement.

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

SAMI ^talk 23:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had created this page, and I am the one pleading it in the court. However this is one of the ONLY two cases in Pakistani courts against Internet censorship (the other being Bytes for All v. Federation of Pakistan) The other case is pending before the Lahore High Court, and this one before the Sindh High Court. The case got wide media coverage, both times it was heard by the Court. I fail to see how this is blatant advertisement. Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 06:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question': "case got wide media coverage", you argue. Would you be willing to provide citations for that coverage? The clearest good source here doesn't refer to this particular case at all, but the other Youtube case. I would be unsurprised to find that this case had achieved signficant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, but I don't see that the sources in the article right now meet that bar. As you are a lawyer, I say to you, present your best evidence, please. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The first three references are about the case at hand. There were a few more Sindhi Newspapers which have reported the case on their front pages like the three sources in the Article, but these newspapers do not have web archives of their newspapers. I do have photographs of the newspaper articles and the pictures of the TV when this was being reported live on air (in Urdu). I guess that would not be a good source to cite.Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as a nominator.~~ -- SAMI ^talk 10:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above. The nomination itself is the delete !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 June 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic and educational page about unique law case with good source coverage. Fascinating implications for freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 31 May 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This issue is certainly a pertinent one, however the article needs to be lengthened. If a consensus is reached for deleting I suggest merging the article with Internet censorship in Pakistan--Cube b3 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both this case and the BytesForAll case into the article on internet censorship in Pakistan. No reason for independent articles for EITHER of these cases. Nickmalik (talk) 18:47, 15 June 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.