- 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. Concern about failing WP:GEOLAND not rebutted. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bahria Enclave Islamabad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a WP:GEOLAND fail - as far as I can tell this is just a neighborhood/residential development (rather than a legally recognized area like a town). Article's sources + a BEFORE give me a press release from a consumer advocacy group about investments in the neighborhood's construction, proof that it exists according to the local development authority, and WP:ROUTINE sorts of local coverage (plus plenty of real estate ads) but nothing that would pass WP:GNG. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:V. I would suggest editors add more sources to strengthen the validity of the article as it is borderline. Article is also in need of a cleanup, so after the consensus I would recommend it be passed on to WP:CLEANUP so it can be formatted correctly. CAVETOWNFAN ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As stated by the nom this fails WP:GEOLAND which is the hurdle. It is closed private development lacking sufficient secondary sources to make it notable. Jeepday ( talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 06:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted above, article fails WP:GEOLAND as well as lacking any kind of significant coverage. Yes, it's verifiable (i.e. the sources show that this suburb exists), but it is certainly not notable... -- Jack Frost ( talk) 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Concern about failing WP:GEOLAND not rebutted. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bahria Enclave Islamabad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a WP:GEOLAND fail - as far as I can tell this is just a neighborhood/residential development (rather than a legally recognized area like a town). Article's sources + a BEFORE give me a press release from a consumer advocacy group about investments in the neighborhood's construction, proof that it exists according to the local development authority, and WP:ROUTINE sorts of local coverage (plus plenty of real estate ads) but nothing that would pass WP:GNG. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:V. I would suggest editors add more sources to strengthen the validity of the article as it is borderline. Article is also in need of a cleanup, so after the consensus I would recommend it be passed on to WP:CLEANUP so it can be formatted correctly. CAVETOWNFAN ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As stated by the nom this fails WP:GEOLAND which is the hurdle. It is closed private development lacking sufficient secondary sources to make it notable. Jeepday ( talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 06:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted above, article fails WP:GEOLAND as well as lacking any kind of significant coverage. Yes, it's verifiable (i.e. the sources show that this suburb exists), but it is certainly not notable... -- Jack Frost ( talk) 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.