Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehran Bank scandal

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Bank scandal

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

This article lacks reliable independent sources. It was created by an investigative journalist, so reads as potential advocacy rather than neutral coverage of the events. The events may indeed be real, though the interpretation may be open to question - if so we need much better sources. Otherwise it needs to go as a poorly sourced article naming numerous living individuals as being responsible for serious criminal activity. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the scandal was tabled on the floor of Pakistans parliament. It is widely referenced Zak (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rough search shows that this scandal happened, no matter how old it is, and if that is verified, the article passes notability IMO (especially given the supposed high profiles involved in this). Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per mar4d.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per many sources such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Yet another time-wasting nomination from an admin who seems to think that he is above such plebeian work as performing simple searches before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article would benefit from more (and perhaps, better) sources, the scandal itself is clearly verifiable and notable (per comments by Mar4d and Phil Bridger. No clear grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2011 (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.