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. Can be userfied if somebody wants it. Sandstein 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Center[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an unbuilt building, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The sources currently in the article amount to web forum posts and a single press release. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate coverage from reliable sources, but were not successful. I am recommending deletion due to failing general notability guidelines. If appropriate sources are located during the course of this discussion please notify me on my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, links and references are available on the article. You just need to open your eyes and watch carefully instead of making excuses. Mohsin17 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are links in the article, but they fail our requirements as reliable sources. By reviewing the references section of the Mubarak Center article, one can see that you have cited WWW.TAAVUN.COM.PK seventeen times, and none of the claims made are supported by the link you provided. The remainder of the links are internet web forums (WWW.URBANPK.COM/forums/index.php/), one dead link, a YouTube video, and a press release hosted by SKYSCRAPERNEWS.COM. Several members of the community, myself included, have repeatedly requested that you stop introducing unreliable sources to Wikipedia articles, including web forums, press releases, and similarly unreliable sources, and this is no exception. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy until a better article is available including when it is completed. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unable to make a recommendation here. The name (due to press photo citation practices -- "Mubarak (center)" is a typical result) makes it difficult to track down much. Certainly the sources as offered are non-viable, but the question in an AfD is where they exist at all. I'm inclined to say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but would be curious to know what domestic press have to say on the topic that might make it at least verifiable/reliable. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Yamaguchi and SwisterTwister. The IP's comments are cogent, but no RS have been provided, and searches have not revealed any. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 28 October 2015 (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.