Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information technology in 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information technology in Pakistan

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

No additional information available other than what is already available in Economy of Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsikha (talk • contribs)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 2. Snotbot t • c » 00:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, indeed, there is more information in the Economy of Pakistan article about IT in Pakistan than there is in this article. Ducknish (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and the article can be expanded with plenty of available sources. If time permits me, I would be willing to give this article some attention and expand it. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: general coverage articles on countries are defacto notable. Should be tagged for appropriate clean up if required. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable topic with fairly large amount of content available online that can be added and Mar4d (author) says he will expand it, I will also like to expand it when I get time. Even with little content I don't see how it satisfies the Deletion Policy. --SMS ^Talk 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Economy of Pakistan#IT industry until there is actual content to support a spinoff article per WP:SS. Articles such as this should grow organically out of each other, there is no point in creating two-sentence stubs. Sandstein 05:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Sandstein. Not yet clear what this article is about.--Kvng (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted in view of changes made to the article since the last comment in this discussion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no longer a two-sentence stub. Too large to merge into Economy of Pakistan. --Kvng (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version really was worthy of being thrown away, but the nominator would have done better to redirect it than to come here. That being said, this version shows that Smsarmad and Mar4d have put a lot of useful work into it. As TopGun said, "[important topic] in [country]" articles are pretty much always article-worthy, so a decent article on such a topic should never be deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone involved in IT IRL I can readily say that this sector of the Pakistani economy is internationally notable of its own accord and the reliable sources which have been added to the article so far are only the tip of the iceberg. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. IT in Pakistan is notable, much as Nursing in Pakistan was and is. I can't help but wondering why people continue to nominate "X in Pakistan" articles without doing any online searches per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviously worth an article, and this has developed enough since the nomination that a redirect would no longer make sense. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is worth keeping regardless the length of the article. If the article is not big, it can be made big, you don't have to delete it. I'll be working on it as the topic is obviously very notable →TSU ^tp* 17:26, 27 May 2012 (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.