Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saif Energy Ltd

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saif Energy Ltd

Saif Energy Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non notable company. Plenty of google hits, but most of them belong to the company's website. No google news results [1] at all. Delete this page as company is still a start up and having no mention at all in the media Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating these articles for deletion because they are related directly to Saif energy ltd, and are non notable and having very few google results.

  • Ahmed Nawaz Khan
  • Saif Group of Companies --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Article is mostly written in future tense ("is eagerly looking forward", "The company will operate ", etc) so a large element of notability via crystal ball. Also, User:Jawadrox has no edits apart from these 3 articles. Emeraude 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, agreed, the fact that it's all in future tense does not bode well. It also has the faint smell of a press release about it. Lankiveil 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, as it is an actual company that does exist today. If they do make any notable advances in oil exploration, it can be updated on the Wiki. Sharkface217 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Existence is not a criterion for keeping. I exist, yet an article about me would be deleted in a heartbeat. -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You can still do that when the page is deleted, by writing a verifiable article about a notable company. Right now, the articles are neither. And existance isn't an argument for keeping, vanity articles about some random school kid get deleted all the time. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP per above. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable, all articles should be deleted. ← ANAS Talk? 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a press release regarding the company here, but otherwise it fails WP:CORP. Black-Velvet 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --SonicChao talk 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious case. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete straight away per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:39, 3 December 2006 (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.