Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afzal Motors


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Afzal Motors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested db-corp. The claims made on the page compelled me to withdraw the speedy nomination but I find no source to backup those tall claims — FR+ 10:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. samee  converse  07:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Keep Sources have been added but the article still needs improvement.  samee  converse  17:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to improve the article by referencing secondary sources, have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osman198 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Week Keep This one is one of the leading bus and truck manufacturers  in Pakistan as per this RS. --Saqib (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm .. the RS you provided from tribune.com.pk is a mention-in-passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 20:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. There are no indications of notability within the article and it reads like an advert, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's enough coverage in Pakistani major English language newspapers: Dawn, The News, Nation. Article can be fixed if it is promotional but should not be deleted on this basis. This company is authorized assembler and manufacturer of Daewoo, JAC Motors and King Long in Pakistan. As per this news piece the plant of this manufacturer company was inaugurated by the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 2007 so I consider it being a notable company. --Saqib (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ^^I have added the above mentioned source to the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osman198 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also added another newspiece published in Dawn. Osman198 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no point in posting links to Google search results -> WP:GHITS. If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them and if they meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote. The dawn news piece fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement and a statement made by a company officer (says "a senior executive in Afzal Motors told Dawn on Friday" bottom of second para) and the article does not contain any original analysis/opinion.  HighKing++ 12:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. I tried to provide the links to some good number of press coverage that this company has received in Pakistan's major English language newspapers. These newspapers are notorious for not provide coverage to insignificant companies. And even though the The Express Tribune's story has provided some passing mention about the company, but it verifies the claim that company is indeed one the country's leading bus and truck manufacturers and is notable to some extent. I believe a neutral article can be easily curated based on the available press coverage. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish notability. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. It may seem contradictory that a reliable third party source can be used to support a statement within an article (i.e. that a company is big) but that same source fails the criteria for establishing notability but it is a case of "cart before the horse". A topic must have a minimum of two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability (WP:NCORP and especially the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections).  HighKing++ 17:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right somewhat and therefore I would change my !vote to week keep in light of your comments. --Saqib (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Found the following mentions as well: financial express,business recorder,just-auto,oneindia,The Hindu. I am a bit new here so don't know much but can the article be kept as a stub?Osman198 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment None of those sources contain intellectually independent content and are all based on company announcements (plant openings) with no intellectually independent content, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. None of those articles are credited to a journalist either.  HighKing++ 17:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: an unremarkable production company; it looks like it's producing buses under license, not its own brand. Sourcing fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. None it is intellectually independent content, being largely churnalism. Nothing redeeming here, so "delete" is the way to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (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.