Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak Watan

Pak Watan

Pak Watan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I am unable to find sources which say this is "a national personification" or a "term of endearment for Pakistan" All I can find is that it simply means Pak Homeland. I can find no sources which discuss the term in detail and as such it fails WP:NEO Perhaps it would be better off on Wiktionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Bad faith nomination by a user on an article contributed by someone with who he has an interaction ban. This is a form of gaming the system, so you would be well advised to stay away from nominating (or heck, even editing) such articles. Talking about the article itself, the sources are there right in front of you, and so are some of its usages suggesting how it is a notable term. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep usage is well cited. Nomination is also a violation of interaction ban and reported at ANI per procedure (will not comment further so as not to violate from myside, can be followed up at ANI). I think ban violations should be out right reverted? --lTopGunl (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As far the article is concerned, synonyms of this term are even cited in the national anthem of Pakistan. There's no doubt on the notability of the term and the mentioned synonyms. It is not remotely a WP:NEO. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Close Bad faith nomination by an editor with an interaction ban. If the article really needs AfDed, let an uninvolved administrator nominate it for deletion. The major participants in this AfD have a clear interaction ban from the community, both were notified prior to the nomination of this AfD.[1][2] Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I gave notice on the talk page ten days before nominating this for AFD, how exactly is that bad faith? It would appear to me the bad faith is on those claiming it. Mar4d, the only source in the article is the one I added, the term means Pak Homeland, that is all I can find by way of coverage. All the other sources are to the list in the article, indicating usage of the term, but not giving the coverage required by WP:NEODarkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - regardless of the procedural sideshow above, this seems clearly to be a WP:NEO situation and there has been no resolution of the proposer's concerns despite those being raised some time prior to the nomination. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: My opinion is based solely on the lack of references from reliable sources about the widespread usage of this term. I didn't find the notability of the term or concept to be backed by any dependable sources. I'd urge Topgun and Mar4d to back their "widely cited" claim with some good references. It seems that the use of the phrase in some songs is cited as reference here. However, that alone does not make the phrase notable ... there are many phrases that are similarly used in many songs. --Ragib (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

67 google Book results, 1,450,000 google search results - just an insight. A WP:NEO does not have that many search results. As for RS, I'll start with the mentions in Pakistan's national anthem, can verified here. These books use it in the given context [3] [4] [5]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are misinterpreting the Google results. In fact, in the second of your two examples, you appear to have actually mis-stated the search term. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What statement is misleading? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading? I said misinterpreting/mis-stating. It may be unintentional. Your searches are catching mirrored content etc and in the case of the general GHits search the phrase was not even constrained, so it picks up every reference to "pak", every reference to "watan" and every reference to "pak watan". What, for example has "pak choi" got to do with the subject of this article? People who have not commented here about the article have nonetheless done so elsewhere, for example this. I am not following every twist and turn of what is becoming a divisive and often rather silly stand-off across a variety of articles but so far all I am seeing - and it shows again in this AfD - is a good, experienced contributor suddenly having some sort of Damascene moment. I cannot understand your position and obviously I apologise for that, but I've tried. I have also tried trawling for Wikipedia articles on various phrases of the UK national anthem using the WP search box and the number seems to be extremely small. Yes, WP:OSE etc, but if your primary argument is that the Pak Watan phrase is in the national anthem and therefore is notable then, well, have we suddenly turned into a lyrics website? Try the same for, say, Home of the Brave, which returns a perfectly reasonable disambig page. Is this the way forward here? Create separate articles for the various uses of "Pak Watan" and then a disambig page for them? I am seeing a lot of uses of the phrase but not a commonality of purpose, which is what this article appears to imply. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok.... I know how to perform google searches, I left the trival on common sense... try this [6], still 161,000 results even when we search for "Pak Watan". Now these results can still include 100s of mirrors and websites named after this term but that is not the point of the search... I was obviously not giving RS when I pointed out the search, it implied an insight. When a search term has that much results (even for a country with not that much coverage on the internet), it is a common term. About the national anthem, no we're not a lyrics website, but that is a notable enough citation for a name given to a country. In my opinion that itself can be counted as a reliable source for notability (unless you consider a national anthem to be not notable or reliable). And then its not about taking all phrases of the national anthem and creating wikipedia pages on them, this one is a special one with different synonyms cited in the national anthem, songs, poetry etc. It is a very commonly used term when referring to Pakistan. I don't see any reason why this should be opposed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Sitush and WP:NEO. Also would encourage the admin closing this AfD to disregard TopGun's vote which is clearly cast in violation of his interaction Ban with the nominator.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban doesn't mean I can not give my opinion in a discussion without interacting either, you can stick to your own comment. This nomination in the first place is being regarded as a ban violation above. As for WP:NEO, it is just the opposite of that per citations above. Neologisms are new terms, this is evidently not given that it is in the national anthem as cited in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. you dont WP:OWN this article. just because you have worked on this article does not mean any other editor cant nominate the article for AfD provided there are good faith reasons to believe that article merits deletion. obviously more than one editor concurs with Darkness Shines here. You however are forbidden from responding to a nomination by DS per requirements of the interaction Ban. an equally ridiculous article would be on the term Mera Bharat Mahan which has about 202K results on google.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified this at ANI, my response here is not a violation. So stop trying to get my views discounted. The nomination was also recognized as a violation at ANI [7]. I've nothing else to say to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

and that big WP:TROUT was meant for somebody else ? Anyway you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine based on our understanding of wikipedia policies. I am sure the closing admin will show good judgement.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Regardless of interaction bans or the motivation of the nominator, this strikes me as a dictionary definition blended with trivia factoids. Not an encyclopedic topic, regardless of how common the term may be. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - AS per Carrite and Sitush and following wp:NEO --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep notable term in Pakistan. Common knowledge and millions of sources. --202.75.53.200 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)