Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khadija Mushtaq (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mushtaq

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

delete it as poor sourced and promotion material about her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.48.206 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Created for IP using rationale left on talk page. ~ GB fan 19:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Poorly sourced articles do not qualify for deletion, but rather a flag for editing required. Focus on the individual, not the qualities of whoever wrote the article. Pilot333 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for her name and she's been written about extensively both in Pakistan and internationally. I added additional sources to the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not so badly sourced, and I can't find what is too promotional about it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:42, 3 March 2018 (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.