Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unemployment in 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 due to the unsalvageable content of the current article. If someone wants to write a proper referenced article with this title, I don't believe a DRV will be necessary. - filelakeshoe 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

=[[Unemployment in Pakistan]]=

:{{la|Unemployment in Pakistan}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Unemployment in Pakistan}})

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - probably a notable topic, but this is just a purely opinionated screed and there is nothing really to salvage. Kansan (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - This looks like a soapbox piece. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Kansan's comments above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kansan. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Unemployment%20in%20Pakistan%22&hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=,bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp enough coverage in reliable sources]. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yZ0LGQAACAAJ&dq=%22Unemployment+in+Pakistan%22&hl=en&ei=QJ67Te_AAYjNrQf7ntj8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA Many] [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TkUFHQAACAAJ&dq=%22Unemployment+in+Pakistan%22&hl=en&ei=QJ67Te_AAYjNrQf7ntj8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=38&ved=0CMwBEOgBMCU books] [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XDs1OAAACAAJ&dq=Unemployment+Pakistan&hl=en&ei=d567TY-PEsSyrAecwrmGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ are] written solely on this topic. The article is poorly written and in its current status constitutes OR, so it needs improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

: Comment The article, in its present state, is a huge stinking pile of POV OR. There is nothing there to salvage. If an article can't be improved, it should be deleted. A complete rewrite is possible, but if no one is willing to step up to that task, the article that exists cannot be allowed to remain. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - soapbox essay, completely unreferenced. Bob talk 09:25, 2 May 2011 (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.