Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Monem Limited

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Standard to apply is NCORP and addressed by delete side. The jeep side has not addressed this standard Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Monem Limited

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Abdul Monem Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. Routine business news as references. scope_creepTalk 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.parvage (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems PROMO, with only routine business announcements for procuring funding and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to the discussion. Mehedi Abedin 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I would suggest keep since it is an industrial giant in the 25th largest economy in the world. It has multibillion dollar revenues and employs tens of thousands of people. Please consider it improving rather than proposing for deletion without studying its background. Maqayum (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What counts per WP:NCORP is the standard of the reference. I notice you have only completed one Afd but your the article creator I guess.

Lets have a look at them.

  • Ref 1 [1]]. This in interview, content taken from the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 2 [2] Company website. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
  • Ref 3 [3] This routine coverage, failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 4 Same as above.
  • Ref 5 [4] About the man himself, not the company. Its not in-depth.
  • Ref 6 [5] Obituary. Its not independent.
  • Ref 7 [6] Same as ref 4.

Looking at the references above.

  • Ref 8 [7] Obit. Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [8] Same ref as above.
  • Ref 10 [9] Not indepth.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 11 [10] Good secondary ref.
  • Ref 12 [11] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [12] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS

Potentially there is 1 secondary source but the quality of the references are woeful and fail WP:NCORP. It is not enough to satisfy WP:THREE, which per consensus is established WP:AFD best practice. At best the secondary proves exist and verifiable but not necessarily notable after an extensive WP:BEFORE search. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - added some refs. There is probably enough notability for inclusion, I think either closing as keep or no consensus to let the article further develop should be fine. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the references:
  • Ref 1 [13] It states According to a press release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 2 [14] Numerous conversations with the Monen director, for each project. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 3 [15] Mentioned Monem indirectly. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [16] A short paragraph, profile essentially. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [17] Passing mention.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 6 [18] Four words. Fails WP:SIRS

More of the same and a complete lack of intellectual rigour and complete ignorance of policy as though it doesn't exist. scope_creepTalk 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete lack" seems like hyperbole and maybe you should reconsider whether you are wrong, for example 16 is at least 3 paragraphs. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INHERITORG applies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of poor sources noted above. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Monem_Limited&oldid=1164184561"