Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Sea 1618


 * 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 keep. WP:NORUSH, We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  03:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead Sea 1618

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was declared unfit for Speedy Deletion, so I've decided to place it here. I've found very few external references to this company from searching, and this company seems generally non-notable. Westroopnerd (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, speedy close. The nominator is racing around to disruptively place deletion tags on new articles that are clearly still being written, usually by experienced editors. The nominator's account is not even 24 hours hours old, and they immediately began new page patrolling, using tools which indicate they're an experienced editor. Something's way, way off here. And the creator of this article should be afforded a decent opportunity to finish writing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to have already started to troll my contributions, let me finish it for you. This is a completely legitimate alternate account under WP:CLEANSTART. On my previous account, I was a new page patroller. On this account, I am a new page patroller. Looks like someone forgot to assume good faith. Additionally, I've already requested you stop trolling my contributions and apologize for calling me a "blithering idiot and/or probable sock at work". Thank you. Westroopnerd (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: On the one hand, I'm not seeing sources. On the other, I've always found AfDing an article within minutes of its creation to be freaking obnoxious.  If you want to be a NPP -- and I've been, in the past -- do it from the BACK of the list.  No one gives out prizes on Wikipedia for the quickest you can AfD articles.  Give them some damn time to write it, huh?  Nha Trang  Allons! 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I'm not happy about it. I really just don't see anything that constitutes a reliable source with significant coverage. Of the two given in the article, the second isn't reliable, and the first lacks sufficient bibliographic information for me to locate. With that said, tagging an article for CSD 1 minute after creation is bad form. And while not strictly germane to this AFD, I'm not entirely certain that the nominator's admitted pattern of focusing on NPP, swapping usernames, and returning to NPP is compliant with WP:CLEANSTART, which extols the new account to "avoid [previous] editing patterns" and to "edit in new areas". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, speedy close, I know this is English Wikipedia, but if it was Arabic wikipedia then a "CSD after 30 seconds of pressing the save key" would have resulted in a minimum of at least a week block. I can't even get the idea that "30 seconds" were enough to read the article and check the two Arabic sources and tag the article with a CSD tag; the two sources I provided were in Arabic. The document that dates to almost 100 year ago (part of Wikimedia Levant GLAM work), would take a native Arab at least a minute to read. I was amazed when I tried to save the next version of the article, as I got an editing conflict. But again, this is English Wikipedia. As so, I (now) do not feel like working on this article for the next month, cause I feel that such disruptive behavior should not be rewarded. I will just keep working on commons, wikisource, wikidata, wikinews, my home wiki (ar) and all the other projects that I have been working on for the last 13 years. I will come back again in a month to work on this article if it survives such attacks. (And yes, based on WP:COMPANY, I have to show the notability, but I was denied the chance to do so) --Tarawneh (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2015 (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.