Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defence Housing Authority, Lahore

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Housing Authority, Lahore[edit]

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

Defence Housing Authority, Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article about a non-notable housing development in Lahore, Pakistan. The article has been skillfully WP:REFBOMBed with 21 sources, exactly zero of which establish the notability of this housing development per WP:GNG. A brief analysis of the sources in the article:

  1. Primary source
  2. Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
  3. Facebook page
  4. Facebook page
  5. Article about a tattoo shop that happens to be in the area. The article is primarily about the tattoo shop, only mentioning the housing development in passing.
  6. Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
  7. Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
  8. Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website
  9. Exact same source as #6
  10. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  11. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  12. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  13. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  14. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  15. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  16. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  17. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  18. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  19. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  20. Dead link to an unreadable document on Google docs
  21. Advertisement for a nearby educational facility

Fails WP:N. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment there is a misunderstanding about articles like this, resulting from language differences. The same thing is happening at Askari,_Lahore. These are not housing associations, or housing authorities in the sense that the terms are used in the US or UK. They are basically regions of a city. They should be assessed as locations in which people live, not as companies or organisations. I don't know what makes a region of a city sufficiently notable to have an article, but since we accept articles on random uninhabited crossroads in the US provided someone can dredge up a newspaper that indicates there was once a house there, it seems a bit arbitrary to refuse an article on a thriving suburb of a major city. On the other hand, these suburbs tend to generate an awful lot of adverts for property-for-sale, and newspaper articles that mention them in passing as the location where something happened, but very little else, so I'm not surprised the referencing is awful. Elemimele (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete failed to prove notability ... just Promotional article on a Pakistani real estate website and most of links are dead  Wikisuper945  Talk Here  02:15, 12 November 2021 (IST)
  • Keep; I'm striking my previous comment because despite the ambiguity between the name of the organisation that ran the development, and the subsequent development as a place where people live, in this case there is copious independent, in-depth coverage of the DHA (in the sense of a developer rather than the development) and its activities, as well as firm evidence that news sources regard "DHA Lahore" as a genuine location. In fact the faintest attempt at a BEFORE would have uncovered this lot. Most of it is extremely negative about the DHA, so the article needs a massive re-write, and isn't going to be popular with DHA's developers, but AfD is famously not clean-up. We don't delete articles about subjects where sources are clearly available:
    ANI news having an in-depth moan at army land-grabbing under the auspices of the DHA [[1]]
    The international News, Pakistan, similarly reporting in depth on a high-court case concerning the DHA's activities in Lahore [[2]]
    Dawn newspaper on the same theme: [[3]]
    Another newspaper's report on the organisers of DHA attempting to coerce residents of the Lahore DHA area into boycotting Dawn newspaper for its reporting of the London Bridge knife attacks: [[4]]
    same story reported differently by different people at [[5]]
    the Friday times reporting, in depth, no how the DHA Lahore project got nicked off a previous independent housing association: [[6]]
    Evidence that DHA Lahore is seen by local media as a defined region in which people live and do things (in this case, unfortunately, strangle people) [[7]]
    Another example from 24newshd.tv: [[8]]
    Bol news on the same theme: [[9]]

Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of these sources establish notability per WP:GNG. I'll explain why for each of the sources that you just posted above:
  1. This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
  2. This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
  3. A very short article that proves that the housing development exists, but does not provide significant coverage as required by GNG.
  4. This source is primarily about a local newspaper, not the housing development.
  5. This 4-sentence article is primarily about a local newspaper, not the housing development.
  6. This source is primarily about the real estate development company, Defence Housing Authority, not the housing development, Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
  7. This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.
  8. This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.
  9. This source is primarily about a crime committed in the neighborhood, not the housing development itself.
Again, assuming that this housing development is not a legally recognized place, it needs to satisfy GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources you provided absolutely prove that the housing development exists. But, proving existence is different that proving notability. To establish notability, you'd need to provide multiple, reliable, independent sources that are primarily about the housing development itself, that describe its history and significance in detail. None of the sources in the article or in this discussion meet that requirement. The real estate development company that built this housing development is a different topic than the housing development itself. That company already has its own article: Defence Housing Authority. Some of the sources you provided above would certainly establish the notability of that company. But, they don't establish the notability of the housing development, which is the subject of this article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to decide what the article is supposed to be about. If it's about a region of Lahore, my reply is this: the last 3 sources indicate nothing more than that local people and news sources regard "DHA Lahore" as the identity of a legitimate suburb. The debate is whether a suburb is sufficiently important to be notable. Brooklyn is; I'm quite happy to accept that DHA Lahore isn't. If the article is supposed to be about the DHA as an organisation that builds estates, specifically its activities in Lahore (and the article currently begins "The Defence Housing Authority, Lahore (DHA Lahore) (Urdu: اختیاریہَ دفاعی اقامت کاری ، لاہور‎) is a housing society located in Lahore") then the remainder of the articles all relate not to DHAs across Pakistan but DHA Lahore. I checked each one. All go into the DHA Lahore estate's development in depth (i.e. DHA Lahore is the main subject of every article). The two that relate to the newspaper are not primarily about the newspaper (that is a misrepresentation of them); they describe how DHA Lahore (management) attempted to suppress the newspaper in the DHA Lahore development, reflecting far more on the developers than the newspaper. I'm not going to argue this indefinitely, I couldn't care two hoots whether the article is kept or deleted, but deletion should be on good grounds, not mere determination to delete. I agree that the current article is definitely lopsided and promotional, and therefore problematic. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, sources that establish the notability of the housing development would cover things like the history of the development, how it was designed and built, its significance within Lahore, its unique geographical features, its notable residents, notable parks or monuments in the area, etc., etc., etc. This article is not about the company that built the development; we already have a separate article on them. You're correct that many of the sources you posted absolutely provide evidence that the development exists, and even evidence that people commonly refer to this region as DHA Lahore. However, that is not evidence that this region is legally recognized as DHA Lahore, nor is it evidence that this region of the city is notable per WP:GNG, in my opinion. Others can examine these sources and decide for themselves. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough! I'll leave my "vote" but I'm fine about being over-ruled, I'm still a beginner at this! It's certainly true that the sources end up falling in one of a handful of rather sad categories: scandals about the DHA developers; newspaper reports of crimes committed in the areas; non-independent items on contracts/planning; and copious estate agents' adverts. Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails notability guidelines.Tvx1 10:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One can see in the 'See also' section of the above article, there are many large suburban neighbourhood towns with similar names in almost all major cities of Pakistan. To help solve the confusion around misnaming this heavily populated town – and it is surely a large middle-class town locality, NOT a real estate development entity. Most people in Pakistan know this, not to mention the big populations that actually live in these towns all across Pakistan. I just now found many newspaper articles to help support the Notability of this town. I'll add these newspaper references tomorrow morning, if given a chance. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's sometimes amusing and surprising to me, how these language issues or misnaming a town by town authorities whose primary language is not English, and it all snowballs into big discussions such as above on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 6 new references today to the above article, removed all promotional websites and their references and cleaned up the article. Now it has References from a News agency from India, 3 major newspapers of Pakistan and 1 reference from the Government of Punjab, Pakistan. Used some newspaper references listed above by Elemimele also. Passes WP:GEOLAND now. In my view, plenty of third party independent newspaper references to support its Notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete analysis of sources by Scottywong prove that WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Established source analyis show its clearcut. scope_creepTalk 01:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it's NOT an ORGANIZATION, it's a TOWN!!! Different criteria of Notability apply here as I have explained above. Similar town names are scattered all across major cities of Pakistan. The misnaming of the town is misleading people to think it's an organization. See Google maps of the town, then there is no doubt. Easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article already has a Google Map of this town as one of its References. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show evidence of the legal recognition of this area as a town, then I agree, this will easily pass WP:GEOLAND. That evidence has not been found. A Google Maps link is not evidence that this is a legally recognized place. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if this were an organization, the coverage of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordering it to turn over housing plans indicates that this is a significant entity. If we're treating this as a housing development authority, it's an NGO rather than a town. And, in that case, WP:NGO indicates that it's likely notable anyway; there appears to be independent coverage from reliable sources, the organization seems to be nationally well-known with factors that have resulted in it receiving widespread attention (it ain't every day that a supreme court case happens, nor that it gets all the coverage it does). If it is indeed a municipality (or an unincorporated community with legal recognition), then this would be a simple pass of WP:GEOLAND. In either case, it appears notable to me, so I believe that the article should be kept. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article on the overall organization that creates these housing developments: Defence Housing Authority. That article has not been nominated for deletion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial coverage that easily fails WP:ORG and WP:GEOLAND. And the fact that they've interacted with the court system is of course not a sign of notability. Star Garnet (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    Shortcut
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history".
DHA Towns all across major cities of Pakistan have a long history behind them starting in the 1960s. Significant news coverage by a news agency in India, three major newspapers of Pakistan and a Punjab Government website are significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the above nomination, the article is much improved now.Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep calling this a "town", but there is no indication that this is anything more than a large housing development or an informal neighborhood within the city of Lahore. A town is a place that is legally recognized. It has distinct boundaries that are defined in law. If it is a populated place, it probably has some kind of local governmental structure. Therefore, assuming that this is not a legally recognized state/city/town/village/settlement in Pakistani law (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then per WP:GEOLAND, it is not presumed to be notable and it must be shown that there are sources that pass GNG, which there clearly aren't. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the news coverage at the article shows me that it's an illegal 'large housing development'. How can we assume that it's illegal? As Wiki editors, none of us have the resources to produce or are expected to show legal documents to prove that everything is legal? We can only go by the news coverage on it, that's all. Can we leave it up to the relevant Wiki staff to make a judgement on it? Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defence_Housing_Authority,_Lahore&oldid=1059670921"