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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Foundation[edit]

Shaheen Foundation (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)

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the four Pakistani military's corporate subsidiaries that include: the Fauji Foundation, the Army Welfare Trust, the Shaheen Foundation, and the Bahria Foundation, with way too many mentions in books plus headlines in media e.g. The Nation & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm finding it difficult to understand how the nominator could come to the conclusion that there is "no in-depth coverage in WP:RS". A simple click on the word "books" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process confirms that there is loads of such coverage. Those searches are there to be looked at, not to be ignored. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are so many sources i'm not sure how this is even at AfD. I suggest the nom withdraw this. -- Dane ^talk 00:42, 1 October 2017 (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.