Pakistan audio leaks controversy : This fails WP:GNG.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here , here , and here ).  The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up.  Cortador ( talk ) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others ."  Emphasis mine.  The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not.  Cortador ( talk ) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article.  The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information.  The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage.  The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension.  While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance.  In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt.  Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [63] .  If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead.  At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia.  111.119.37.78 ( talk ) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:Notability .  Also lack of depth.  Wikibear47 ( talk ) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion.  Cortador ( talk ) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's allow the AfD to run its course.  As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG.  Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have asked Samee at User talk:Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution.  Thincat ( talk ) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Samee has not edited since 2 May.  Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful.  Thincat ( talk ) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here.  Thincat ( talk ) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [64] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS.  Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [65] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep