Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Monthly Magazine

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan-ul-Faqr Monthly Magazine

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

Promotional article coming from the now-deleted Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd.; this Urdu-language periodical fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERIODICAL for lack of any third-party sources. Google's only results except Wikipedia is the company's blog and facebook pages. kashmiri ^TALK 10:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed— there seem to be no independent online sources in Urdu or English. I declined the speedy delete and removed a few peacock terms, as it could be cleaned up easily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the same premises for which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faqr-e-Iqbal were deleted. This article is just another one of the trove of promotional pieces created by the same group of one-topic sockpuppets about a non-notable publication house and all its publications. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host. Even if it were "available all over" (no sources cited), it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 26 January 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.