Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saif Group


 * 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. ansh 666 01:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Saif Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No in-depth coverage. Name-checks only. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  Greenbörg  (talk)  07:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Clearly notable conglomerate, based on the article's content. See this coverage by Forbes for example. Also covered in other reliable news refs.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Just redid the article with 9 references including many newspapers. Clearly a major conglomerate company of Pakistan with a lot of news coverage. It was just a 'neglected' article.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've checked the 9 references added to the article. Normally Forbes is a poor source for references but in this case there at first glance, appears to be a substantial independent article that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first problem is that the article mostly concerns the activities of Saif Energy and not the holding company, Saif Group (the subject of this topic), although later on in the article the contributor switches to talk about Saif Group. The second problem is that halfway through the article, we start to see quotations from Javed Khan, an officer of the company. That would call into question the intellectual independence of the article and I would say it fails the criteria (WP:ORGIND) on that basis. The reference from nation.com.pk fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention in passing and has no indepth details. the pakistan-stocks.blogspot.ie reference fails for many reasons - it is a blog and therefore not a reliable source, but it is also a normal business listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH too. Similarly, the pagespak.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere listing. The brecorder.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement and is not intellectually independent. The following three references fail as they are from the saifgroup website and therefore are a PRIMARY source. The dawn.com reference is an obituary for the "patron of Saif Group" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention-in-passing. Finally, the pakistantoday.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is also a mention in passing. I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote if two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. -- HighKing ++ 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It has references that are secondary, and is written ok. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody has submitted any new references since 30th September and no new arguments (or !votes) based on policy or guidelines have been put forward. I'm happy to wait a little longer to see if any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability turn up but it doesn't look like it is going to happen. -- HighKing ++ 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing administrator – I would recommend a no consensus closure if no more !votes are added as the arguments seem to be evenly split.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as the sources are just about adequate for a non-public facing company based in a non-English speaking country. Dysklyver  23:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a publicly traded company (WP:LISTED) w/ $2B in revenue passes my personal threthold for corporations :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we write about this company without WP:OR if we remove content which is not per WP:RS. I failed to verify that company earns revenue of $2B. WP:LISTED doesn't mean notable.  Greenbörg   (talk)  16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there are enough sources identified in this discussion to pass WP:GNG as I disagree that they should be discounted 19:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sometimes a little skeptical about thissort of article, but the firm is certainly important enough to be notable, as shown by the references. Some cleanup will be necessary, and I have just done it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (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.