Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafhan Maize


 * 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   speedy delete. 20:32, 5 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rafhan Maize" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.rafhanmaize.com/) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rafhan Maize

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company as per required by Wikipedia Notability Policy Burhan Ahmed  (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication of notability, fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It gets a few hits of Google news, mostly stock market information though. Google books gets even more. It does seem to be quite a large company. I don't know what the policy with these things is, though.  Night w   12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google Books search demonstrates clear notability, starting with this source. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: this was my thinking also.  Night w   05:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - That ref doesn't come close to the standard required for inclusion at WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of the standard does it not meet? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All I have seen so far is one ref with a brief mention. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when was two pages of coverage, including "Rafhan Maize Products operates the most notable private sector maize research effort in Pakistan", a brief mention? There's plenty more coverage in just that one book (click "view all"), and in the many more books found by clicking on the search links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you have more refs then by all means add them to the article and I will be very happy to change my delete to a keep and we can probably wrap this AfD up quickly then. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't run an edit-on-demand service. I'll improve the article if and when, as a volunteer, I decide to. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then well let's let the AfD run and see what the consensus is, then. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time-being, there is evidence that the company exists. Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The standard for keeping an article on a company is not that the company exists, but that that it meets the standard required for inclusion at WP:CORP "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 37 hits on Google scholar, 169 hits on Google books, 239 hits on Google news. We're hardly relying on a "single independent source". I'd say the article obviously needs expanding, but that's not a reason for deletion. Notability seems to be quite obviously met.  Night w   16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as a copyvio from . -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since the article has now been speedily deleted as a copyright violation I think this AfD can be wrapped up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 6 January 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.