Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Forland Pakistan


 * 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! 12:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

JW Forland Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company does not appear to meet WP:CORP and lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment company is registered as foton jw autopark Pvt ltd and you'll find enough coverage if you search using that(I've no issues if articles name is changed to that), the products are sold under the banner jw forland. I've added some sources as well.Osman198 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a single cited source directly discuss the subject. Only passing mentions. The rest are non-reliable sources. Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Then delete the article, it'll get sometime for a new company to get direct mentions in major newspapersOsman198 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think, that the article is not notable enough as of now, so i'll go with delete on this one.   M A A Z     T A L K   17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, its new company. It is a joint venture. There is enough proof that they are in business of assembling commercial vehicle. For now, it can stay as stub, but should not be deleted. --Spasage (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * " For now, it can stay as stub, but should be deleted. " You're literary confused. I think you need to study WP:ATADD. --Saqib (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Typo, not was missing. I have fixed it. Thanks for pointing out. --Spasage (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very likely that you will soon find yourself topic banned from XFDs, if you continue making such utterly ridiculous and nonsense arguments. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Spasage, you do not appear to understand what stubs are, at least not on the English Wikipedia - and I see you have made the same mistake at a number of other deletion discussions. A stub is not something we use for subjects that are not yet notable but might be in the future. A stub is simply an undeveloped article, and is subject to the same notability requirements as fully developed articles. Also, on the English Wikipedia, proof of existence is not proof of notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per nom.Zero non-trivial coverage in RS. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of search results. Though irrelevant,there has been some self-promotion but even that is very low. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 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.