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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Pets of Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completing contested PROD nomination on behalf of 80.215.156.205, who seems unsure about our deletion processes. The original PROD rationale was: "Wikipedia is not the daily mirror or a fan site. Khan is notable, his dog or the colour of his sock is of zero interest in an encyclopedia. The "Imran Khan sidebar" should be deleted as well, no need for a template about everything. ([1])" As nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a relief. Thanks @Ivanvector:. --Saqib (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being the creator of the article, I would obviously say keep because I believe the topic meet basic GNG. And such a weird and unusual article can be kept per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Saqib (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saqib you are still expected to present refs that can claim notability. Per WP:ILIKEIT--DBigXrayᗙ 18:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6 puts it quite well. I could not have said this any better myself. --Saqib (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm a little concerned that this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS - the article uses at least a few sources which document Wikipedia's coverage of Khan's dogs. I haven't reviewed in great detail but we'll need sources that can establish that Khan's pets were notable before Wikipedia wrote about them. To Saqib's point: it's entirely possible that they are, and we do have several articles on notable pets of notable world leaders. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this page itself received enormous press coverage in several Pakistani, Indian and even British newspapers, but the article currently cite less than 5 news stories. Rest of the citations are published before this page creation. I will provide here some coverage to establish GNG. --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easy keep vote for me. The subject has accrued WP:SIGCOV, both direct and tangential, in reliable sources (including two works of print media [2], [3]), has a claim to significance, and has a precedent on Wikipedia by way of Winston Churchill's pets, Pets of Vladimir Putin, etc. To begin, Imran Khan's pets have garnered coverage directly concerning them in regional/national publications, namely ones such as these [4][5] [6] that either report on or refute the possibility that Khan's animals played a part in his divorce. Either way, the coverage is directly concerned with the animals. I find the ARY News source (this one also makes mention [7] of the incident) to be pertinent to this AfD, as it states that Khan has been criticized for the going against Pakistani social norms by allowing his dogs in his house; this seems to be a credible claim to significance, and a case for why Khan's animals have a measure of encyclopedic significance. Moving on, Khan's late dog Sheru (per [8], a gift from a former president of Pakistan) also received several direct mentions in the Pakistani press (and one in the Daily Mail [9], which I am listing here as a testament to the dog's international exposure, not as a WP:RS), including one [10] that characterized a report of the dog being kicked out of Khan's house as "viral". Two other dogs of Khan's have accrued more coverage, for example this source [11] from The Print that covers the multiple events Khan's dogs have been involved in. Other animals owned by Khan likewise are covered, mostly as a result of him having to disclose [12] his personal wealth. And then of course there are the few articles that reference this page's existence, which is a WP:CITOGENESIS issue. That being said, the weight of quality coverage amassed by Khan's animals prior to August 2018 (when this article was created) should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:OTHERSTUFF.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pets are meeting the notability guidelines, plenty of coverage in reliable sources and there is precedence of pets related articles for pets belonging to heads of state! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Easily meets WP:GNG even with the meta/circular articles.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC); edited 19:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - his pets may warrant a brief mention in his article; this article is just a collection of random trivial details with no overall coherence. 93.148.174.11 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the detailed coverage identified by SamHolt6, who's done a pretty good job putting this all together. I'm not really convinced that the details about the dogs' involvement in the divorce really count as more than trivial mentions, but they are mentioned trivially by many independent sources. Some of the others are quite in-depth reports about the dogs, though, and that tips it for me. As for the article having "no overall coherence", WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. And, of course, if there's an argument to delete the sidebar then it should be a separate discussion, but I strongly disagree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because no clear reason was actually provided by the contesting IP, and because the subject meets WP:GNG by a significant margin as explained above or evidenced in the large number of reliable, multiple sources quoted in the article. Many of them much before Khan's election or for that matter his entry into mainstream politics. Very few other politicians, and certainly in the case of Pakistan, have had as much coverage on their pets, so this is not even mere trivial coverage. Also, this coverage is based on multiple, reliably-sourced, different stories and anecdotes as opposed to one or two events, so that itself negates that lone point. I will go the extent of saying that no other public figure has been discussed as much in the Pakistani public or media for their lifestyle and keeping of pets as much as Khan, after perhaps Jinnah. Musharraf might come a close second, and even his gifting of a dog is mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG.SamHolt6 has provided a wonderful explanation. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no case for deletion as there's the obvious alternative of merger into the main article about Khan. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has reliable resources and is fine article. No reason for deleting. PakEditor (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources seem reliable and their is nothing wrong with this kind of article. There are many articles on Wikipedia about different pets of people like Vladimir Putin and US presidential dogs etc. Usman47 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2018 (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.