Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ishag


 * 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. Discounting IP comments, obviously.  Sandstein  07:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Ishag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor player, minor coverage. I've already removed some vanispam from the article. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I had just gutted a lot of the article. The vast majority of the coverage in there seems to refer to other companies or businesses that just tangentially touched on Ishag. Nothing left looks to be significant coverage. In addition, I strongly suspect there's been paid editing going on here given this article and Karhoo were both created around the same time during a major PR push by the Karhoo people. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb5fa9ee-78e7-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html#axzz440tEcI00

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/18/newmedia.internet
 * ? Drmies (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. owner of several insignificant companies in succession. Nothing ishere to show notability  DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing suggesting better independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  17:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The three companies in question are not insignificant enough in size or scope to merit deletion. They have a combined market value in excess of $1 billion according to my research, which is by no means small enough for the article to be deleted, particularly considering many of the companies on WP with less than a $50m market value. I found BluewaterBiog to have nine large waste water treatment plants around the world, which again provides no ground for deletion or a claim of insignificance in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.9.77 (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage of him does not rise to the level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Recent CNBC and CNN reports on the the subject and his current business endeavor establish required level of notability worthy of the encyclopedia.


 * 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.