Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Mawarid Bank


 * 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. m.o.p 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Al-Mawarid Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously-deleted article makes no claim of notability. Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources (book sources are directory information only, news sources don't seem to provide any coverage of the institution). Bongo  matic  16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and salt. The current text is useless as unambiguous advertising, and I didn't see anything that looked like significant coverage in the first few pages of Google results: Al-Mawarid Bank is growing towards banking excellence through improving its wide range of services, and introducing innovative products.... Al-Mawarid Bank’s range of Credit & Debit Cards, Loans, Accounts and Personalized Services, is designed around its customers, since their customer’s satisfaction comes first.  I think I threw up in my mouth a little. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - The text at the time of nomination read like an advertisement because the material had been copied from bank's web site. At the time the article was created, the text was neutral in tone, and was referenced.  I have restored that material.  The article should be reviewed again and judged on the basis of notability,a nd not the advertising tone. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The bank is mentioned here and there but I cannnot find significant coverage about the bank. This source calls the bank relatively minor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - The non-copyvio version is reasonable enough, and the bank seems like it should be notable. Are there any Wikipedians from the area who might be able to find more? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "seems like it should be notable" doesn't appear to be a valid consideration for the discussion. The fact that it doesn't fall under db-copyvio isn't either. Bongo  matic  02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin This discussion was listed properly for 2 weeks, then on Oct 17 it was removed from the log to relist a 2nd time, but never properly relisted. I have now added it to the current day's deletion log. Monty  845  00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No find significant coverage. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2011 (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.