Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Veins (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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Veins (Pakistan)

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in several reliable sources, that too on different stories covering women and transgender issues. [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only are there mentions, as Mar4d has shown, but there are in-depth profiles of Blue Veins. The organization is extremely high profile in KPK. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that I've edited and expanded the article. See my sources there. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now that the article has been expanded, it seems to pass WP:ORG. The Diplomat source is definitely significant coverage of the org, and the profile at Insight on Conflict also seems significant. I imagine there is much more extensive coverage in Urdu, but those sources would be harder to access. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (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.