Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar (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 delete. Yes, the question is whether there are sources, but this discussion does not provide any. Per WP:BURDEN, people who want to keep content must provide the sources for it. Sandstein 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Kept at AfD in 2017, but I just don't see the GNG pass. The sources that were posted in that AfD aren't significant coverage. For example, [1] and [2] are trivial mentions ("X event was organized by Anjuman") or are largely about other people, like [3]. The link to TheNews.com.pk is permadead, but this covers the same story and makes clear that it's the same kind of "event arranged by this organization" trivial mention. The book source is a trivial mention in a footnote. The sole source cited in the article is too short to constitute sigcov - it's a short notice about someone running for reelection to be president of the organization.

Overall there just isn't enough significant coverage of the organization to justify a keep under WP:NORG/WP:GNG, regardless of how often it gets mentioned in books or news articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 60-year-old organisation that seems the closest thing there is to a regulator for the Khowar language, and probably the only one that publishes works in the language on any any meaningful scale? That would lead me to assume that it's significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and it would need a negative result after a really thorough WP:BEFORE to convince me otherwise. – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a WP:TMBS answer - you're assuming it's significant, in the complete absence of any sourcing. I didn't find anything on my search, the Urdu wiki article actually has less sourcing than ours, and even the people who argued keep at the last AfD couldn't find anything more substantial than trivial mentions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that just claiming that something looks important is woolly and hand-wavy, but what is the alternative? I don't want to criticise your nomination ~~(it's obviously of higher standard than average)~~, but all that you're presenting is the five pages that someone pulled at random from an English-language Google search five years ago. That's not a reasonable basis for an evaluation of sources: it's easy enough to locate many more English-language mentions of similar calibre online, but more importantly, any actually substantial coverage of such a topic is going to be offline and in Urdu, and I don't see any evidence that anyone has considered looking in that direction. – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which, to repeat what PMC said, is WP:TMBS. Yes, it's possible there are hard to find sources, but it's possible they don't exist. Shrug. Unless someone can find them, the article has to go. The responsibility for finding such sources, in the end, rests on the editor(s) who want to write about the topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also WP:NEXIST, which, unlike TMBS, is part of our guidelines: notability doesn't depend on what happens to be present in the article, but what sources exist out there in the world. I don't believe it's a justifiable position to argue for deletion without making at least a token effort to look for sources. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This rather unfairly assumes that I didn't so much as make " a token effort to look for sources", despite the fact that I've clearly stated I did. Again though, you're assuming that sources exist offline and in Urdu, but that's not an assumption we can make. For all we know, no one in the Urdu-speaking world ever cared to write so much as a paragraph about this group. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not contain any indication of how this organization meets WP:NORG. They sources found so far are sufficient to verify the existence of the topic, but not its notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question is whether there are sources, not whether they are known to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (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.