Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSLIM Institute Islamabad, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MUSLIM Institute Islamabad, Pakistan

[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)

Non-notable 'research institute'; despite the heavy refbombing, the sources are close and/or primary, or passing incidental mentions, and don't satisfy

WP:GNG

notability or even basic verifiability, to say nothing of the promotional nature of the whole piece.

It looks like this was earlier draftified, republished, speedied, and has now been re-republished, so if this AfD results in delete, my suggestion would be to salt it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2021-03 ✗

G11, 2021-03 move to → Draft:MUSLIM Institute Islamabad, Pakistan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to recreation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry I just can’t face ploughing through all that stuff. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 16 April 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.