Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Tradings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Azamishaque (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 14 September 2010 (Voting to keep the article on board). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Harvest Tradings

Harvest Tradings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There may be some sources in Pakistani, but the english sources I can find all appear to be press releases that are mirrored on other sites. This article has been subject to serious socking/tag-team editing. Though they appear to be hoping to become a major export company, at this time they do not appear to be one. Closing admin should examine editing patterns of users who comment on this discussion for blatant socking. Terrillja talk 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no indepedent sources that indicate that this company might be notable - I note that two previous attempts to create an article on this subject were speedy deleted, once as an A7 and once as a G11. I don't speak Urdu, so I am open to persuasion if someone can find some appropriate sources. Rje (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per comments, promotional issues. Lack of independent citations and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources in their entirety consist of press releases, blogs, and the company's official website; there's no indication of notability and clearly a search for third-party sources is coming up empty. The promotional nature of the bulk of the article is also cause for concern, but not a reason for deletion: promotional material should be removed and improved rather than the article deleted, unless it meets G11, which I don't believe it does. However, the article can and should be deleted on the notability issues and lack of verifiability alone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I don't think so that it may be deleted because, as i have seen the only single private owned organization in the South Asia who contribut to nation and working on the different authentic patrens. so rather to delete its better to improveHorticultures (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Horticultures (talk) point of view, it must not be deleted, and try to improve the article and deleted those things which we may feel appropriate. Azamishaque (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that only policy-based arguments will be considered by the closing admin when determining consensus. You have not addressed any of the concerns regarding the notability of this subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete as the point of view above user the notablity factor is to there. i want to creat consensus with you people towards the signifance of this articel. rite now there no advertisment material. as per my findings this subject contribute in Pakistan 2010 floods which is worst than Tunsami and Hattie, as UN reported with out any incentive for the people of pakistan in the light of different releases. i dont know this company, but as a Wikipedia user i have right to use my vote for a positive thing. Horticultures (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Do not Delete one above user pointed out A7 and once as a G11 code before regarding the speedy deletion of the subject. it is possible that before it didnt follow the exact guidliness of Wikipedia. but now i dont see any thing to mark deletion. i think we should go for neutral point of view. its not the matter of determination. Case_edu (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarise yourself with our notability guidelines, which are the primary argument for this article's deletion. If you can demonstrate that it meets these guidelines, then it should be kept. So far there is no evidence that this is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No offence!! well According to notability issue, there are references quoted by the author, and it is independent a third source and it does not include any fame or popularity so i still vote for not to delete or make it improvement, if you still feel then delete the specific content rather to delete the whole articleAzamishaque (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harvest_Tradings&oldid=384759694"