Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Mobile


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Q Mobile

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article lacks self consistency regarding the company, something indicating that it is bizarre already. The references are not all they are suggested to be either. One leads to a Q Mobile phones for sale site. Delete as disguised advertising and salt as repeatedly recreated. With the current paid editing scandal, is this an article that falls under that category? Fiddle  Faddle  18:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * the article just needs editing thats all and it should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaid kapoor (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)  — Junaid kapoor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple reliable sources making it a notable subject U  BS  10:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the article was recently speedied as A7 and G11, but I don't see it applicable any more. Besides the news source in the article I find some other, , that are sufficient to establish notability per WP:CORP. --  S M S   Talk 04:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Quite notable, common and popular mobile phone company in the country. Should be kept. Fai  zan  15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definitely Notable. The article is not well written but that doest not warrant a deletion.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the above editor is a sockpuppeteer and paid editor.  It is unclear whether he has WP:COI on this article.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he broke the rules in the past (and I blocked him for doing so). But following him around and leaving disclaimers after his edits is somewhat problematic, particularly if you don't have any evidence that he is currently breaking the rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2013 (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.