Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Tradings

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Tradings

Socking users comments have been struckthrough per the WP:SPI here

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There may be some sources in Urdu, but the english sources I can find all appear to be press releases that are mirrored on other sites. This article has been subject to serious socking/tag-team editing. Though they appear to be hoping to become a major export company, at this time they do not appear to be one. Closing admin should examine editing patterns of users who comment on this discussion for blatant socking. Terrillja _talk 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no indepedent sources that indicate that this company might be notable - I note that two previous attempts to create an article on this subject were speedy deleted, once as an A7 and once as a G11. I don't speak Urdu, so I am open to persuasion if someone can find some appropriate sources. Rje (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per comments, promotional issues. Lack of independent citations and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources in their entirety consist of press releases, blogs, and the company's official website; there's no indication of notability and clearly a search for third-party sources is coming up empty. The promotional nature of the bulk of the article is also cause for concern, but not a reason for deletion: promotional material should be removed and improved rather than the article deleted, unless it meets G11, which I don't believe it does. However, the article can and should be deleted on the notability issues and lack of verifiability alone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete I don't think so that it may be deleted because, as i have seen the only single private owned organization in the South Asia who contribut to nation and working on the different authentic patrens. so rather to delete its better to improveHorticultures (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)— Horticultures (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I agree with Horticultures (talk) point of view, it must not be deleted, and try to improve the article and deleted those things which we may feel appropriate. Azamishaque (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that only policy-based arguments will be considered by the closing admin when determining consensus. You have not addressed any of the concerns regarding the notability of this subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete as the point of view above user the notablity factor is to there. i want to creat consensus with you people towards the signifance of this articel. rite now there no advertisment material. as per my findings this subject contribute in Pakistan 2010 floods which is worst than Tunsami and Hattie, as UN reported with out any incentive for the people of pakistan in the light of different releases. i dont know this company, but as a Wikipedia user i have right to use my vote for a positive thing. Horticultures (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — Horticultures (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Do not Delete one above user pointed out A7 and once as a G11 code before regarding the speedy deletion of the subject. it is possible that before it didnt follow the exact guidliness of Wikipedia. but now i dont see any thing to mark deletion. i think we should go for neutral point of view. its not the matter of determination. Case_edu (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with our notability guidelines, which are the primary argument for this article's deletion. If you can demonstrate that it meets these guidelines, then it should be kept. So far there is no evidence that this is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No offence!! well According to notability issue, there are references quoted by the author, and it is independent a third source and it does not include any fame or popularity so i still vote for not to delete or make it improvement, if you still feel then delete the specific content rather to delete the whole articleAzamishaque (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that AfD does not work on "votes", and stating "keep" twice to try to double your "vote" is simply disruptive. Only arguments based on policy will be considered. Third-party sources, by definition, cannot be written by those associated with the subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As above all, we all go for arguments. i dont see any thing which goes for AFD deletion. i think we should improve if some author have some issue. contribute for the page rather criticise.AhmadJawad (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it fails to meet the guidelines for inclusion, then there is nothing to "improve" I looked for sources, there aren't any. This isn't a "criticise" [sic] thing, it's a following the rules thing. --Terrillja _talk 14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of neutral secondary reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns two results from FreshPlaza, which I do not consider to be a reliable source. The first article reads like a press release (Harvest Tradings is one of the leading export companies from Pakistan to the Middle East, Canada and Central Europe. The company believes in people, performance, quality, customer commitment, and integrity.) The second article has little information about the company itself. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.