Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKD Investment


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

AKD Investment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I find references that prove it exists, but nothing in-depth to establish notability. Searched Google, Google Books, and Google News. CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks Corporate Depth and Notability. It merely serves the creation as Wikipedia Profile. Light2021 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Analysis of contributions implies that the time spent in developing this analysis and preparing the text was 129 seconds. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * hardly a refute of a keep vote. An analysis of your recent edits shows you have been adding such non constructive edits to AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Analysis of contributions implies that the time spent in developing this analysis and preparing the text was 129 seconds. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * hardly a refute of a keep vote. An analysis of your recent edits shows you have been adding such non constructive edits to AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:CORP . Mainly primary sources or PR releases supplied in article. Same in gnews. I'm guessing someone will just refute this on the basis of the seconds I took to write this. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam. The content is 100% advertorial and should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.