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. While opinion was pretty evenly split, those editors arguing to Keep failed to provide reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, even when asked multiple times by other editors. LizRead!Talk!02:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better:
Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release;
ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and
ref 9 is an unreliable piece
by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —
Cryptic14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are
worthnada. —
Cryptic20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:
1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. 2. Be completely independent of the article subject. 3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source. 4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
Hello IP - I hadn't voted to delete before, but now I did, because you failed to convince me. Also please try to avoid WP:PA as they're not helpful. Best wishes! --
Saqib (
talk)
10:55, 15 June 2024 (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.
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. While opinion was pretty evenly split, those editors arguing to Keep failed to provide reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, even when asked multiple times by other editors. LizRead!Talk!02:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better:
Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release;
ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and
ref 9 is an unreliable piece
by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —
Cryptic14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are
worthnada. —
Cryptic20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:
1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. 2. Be completely independent of the article subject. 3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source. 4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
Hello IP - I hadn't voted to delete before, but now I did, because you failed to convince me. Also please try to avoid WP:PA as they're not helpful. Best wishes! --
Saqib (
talk)
10:55, 15 June 2024 (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.