Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban developers


 * 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 & Salt. Sam Walton (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Urban developers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page about a local Lahore real estate development company with nine listed projects since 1980. The company was previously promoted here using the correctly capitalized article title Urban Developers, created by User:UrbanDevelopers, deleted under G11 on 21 November 2016, as well as the title Urban Developers Group also deleted under G11 on 26 November 2016 (confirmation of matches).

Searching for "Urban Developers" returns the expected flood of false positive non-proper noun hits. More narrow searching for sources has been performed:
 * Nothing with quote marks. Without quote marks, only the company's Facebook group page Urban Developers Chartered Town Planners Public Group turns up.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. No useful hits found.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. No useful hits found.
 * "Urban Developers Associates" is a name they also use on Facebook. No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. A staggering amount of general hits; I looked through the first 100, and none of them were links to reliable sources.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Spot checking the first seven pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * Gnews:
 * trivial mention in non-bylined source:
 * trivial mention in:
 * trivial mention in:
 * Gbooks:
 * snippet view, looks like an advertisement:
 * Spot checking the first five pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Spot checking the first few pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Skimming all other 536 general hits (YMMV), I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No hits. Spelling error?
 * Gbooks:
 * snippet view, looks like an advertisement:
 * Spot checking the first five pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Spot checking the first few pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Skimming all other 536 general hits (YMMV), I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No hits. Spelling error?
 * No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Skimming all other 536 general hits (YMMV), I have found no useful links to reliable sources.
 * No hits. Spelling error?
 * No hits. Spelling error?

Based on the above findings (or lack of findings) and the currently provided "sources" in the article, the company fails WP:NCORP and should be deleted per WP:DEL8; if someone can do a better sourcing job, I'm all ears. — Sam Sailor 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as multiple carefully examined searches found nothing of actual independent notability and substance, this has clear motivations of only existing as a business listing, so that itself has multiple policy violations; there's naturally no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else and there's no convincing exceptions here. When an article has to largely specify all of their obtained possessions and businesses, it's clear it's to advertise to interested buyers, since that's never what an encyclopedia publishes. SwisterTwister   talk  19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt given persistent recreation under various names; strictly corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance for this unremarkable real estate developer. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete & salt as per K.e.coffman's analysis above. Searches have not turned up the type of detailed, in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show it satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, and the most thoroughly researched and explained AfD rationale I've seen. And salt and pepper, too. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Salt if appropriate. -- HighKing ++ 15:03, 27 January 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.