Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashtun Congress 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Congress of Pakistan[edit]

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

Nothing in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep User is mass submitting pakistani based articles while not conducting WP:BEFORE see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazia_Hassan_Foundation Egaoblai (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such organisation in RS therefore it appears to be non notable. Also there is nothing about its founder Haji Abdul Wali Khan Khilji anywhere in RS. --Saqib (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per two-thirds of the above; point of order to Egaoblai, there is nothing wrng with doing that (if indeed it is a "mass" submission- you mention only one other article!) as long as it is not disruptive. And submitting- mass or not- non-notable articles for consideration by the community is clearly not. Just FYI bro! Now, if, say, User:Winged Blades of Godric came along (being he that closed that you mention above) and grandly declared "an abundance of sources" again, I would doubtless meekly accept the posit and change my !vote. But I can't see sheeaat right now ;) ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged by 54129 my take on this AFD is delete.The procedural keep has nothing to do with my closing of a part. AfD which was clearly a bad nomination heading for a snow and had enough sources unlike the case over here.And from Alex's closure of the AN thread, I take the liberty to assume that the AFDs already launched by Greenborg shall proceed normally on individual merit.Winged Blades^Godric 07:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question was the subject of an complaint, in which it was found that their "longstanding pattern of periodical mass nominations in AfD is problematic, and has been pointed out as such by numerous other users in the past several months...", They appear to have been nominating articles without due diligence and WP:BEFORE, essentially forcing others to do it for them, which I'm sure is a violation of Wiki rules. Hence a recommendation for a procedural keep. I'll admit their isn't a lot of english language sources, it seems to appear in a few google books listing organizations, but I think we need search in vernacular sources too, something which I cannot do. Does anyone in this AFD proposal speak Urdu or Pashto? because that is what we really need here before going forward. I found this article, but I can't read it. http://www.bbc.com/pashto/mobile/world/2012/02/120206_baloch_usa_congress.shtml Egaoblai (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (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.