Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources[edit]
This page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet who has a history of writing paid BLPs, potentially as an attempt to WP:GAMING. Given this context, this is not a legitimate and does not reflect community consensus. Deleting it would prevent any confusion and ensure that unreliable sources are not mistakenly defended using this page as a reference. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: He may be the author but not the only editor, and he was not blocked when he started the page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's puzzling how a blocked user can create this page. Obviously, they were unblocked at that time. However, whether the user was blocked or unblocked seems irrelevant here. The core issue is having such a page that lacks community consensus and is primarily edited by suspected sockpuppets. This poses a significant risk, as this page could be susceptible to misuse, intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the inclusion of unreliable sources, especially on BLPs, which are highly contentious area. Therefore, it's imperative to consider removing such a page altogether. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're mixing 2 arguments. Argument 1: That the page was created by a user who was later blocked. Unless the page's creation is the very reason why he was blocked (not the case here), that's not a valid reason for deletion. Second, that unlike the perennial sources pages this one has not been subject to substantial scrutiny. That can easily be dealt with with a disclaimer at the top. I know nothing of Pakistani press or politics, so I don't know if the list is accurate or not, but I can't support deletion based on my own ignorance. If someone with more local knowledge can actually point examples of misuse, then that would be something else. Cambalachero (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at WP:NEWSORGINDIA, that summarizes media in all of the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan. Much of it is paid for and this page looks like it was clearly created to prop up otherwise non-reliable sources and paid media. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambalachero: If you acknowledge your lack of familiarity with Pakistani press and sources , then on what basis did you vote to keep this page? This page is already being exploited by serial sockpuppets who utilizing unreliable sources listed on this page to cite material on BLPs. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at WP:NEWSORGINDIA, that summarizes media in all of the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan. Much of it is paid for and this page looks like it was clearly created to prop up otherwise non-reliable sources and paid media. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're mixing 2 arguments. Argument 1: That the page was created by a user who was later blocked. Unless the page's creation is the very reason why he was blocked (not the case here), that's not a valid reason for deletion. Second, that unlike the perennial sources pages this one has not been subject to substantial scrutiny. That can easily be dealt with with a disclaimer at the top. I know nothing of Pakistani press or politics, so I don't know if the list is accurate or not, but I can't support deletion based on my own ignorance. If someone with more local knowledge can actually point examples of misuse, then that would be something else. Cambalachero (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's puzzling how a blocked user can create this page. Obviously, they were unblocked at that time. However, whether the user was blocked or unblocked seems irrelevant here. The core issue is having such a page that lacks community consensus and is primarily edited by suspected sockpuppets. This poses a significant risk, as this page could be susceptible to misuse, intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the inclusion of unreliable sources, especially on BLPs, which are highly contentious area. Therefore, it's imperative to consider removing such a page altogether. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - It falls under WP:TNT territory at this point. Two editors do not decide the reliability of sources and the fact that one was here gaming the system is kind of sad actually. The fact that the "generally borderline sources" (eluding that they can still be used) are in fact, UNRELIABLE sources, which are not included in the unreliable source section (Odd there are only three sources deemed "unreliable"). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete These sort of pages only work if there is widespread support for them - there clearly isn't here. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and CNMall41. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: So as expected, my fears have proven to be true. These sock farms created this page for a reason. @Cambalachero: —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2024 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.