Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watan Group
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 keep. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watan Group[edit]
- Watan Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined the speedy on this. The article covers the group, but isn't really about it. That seems reasonable for CSD but I'm not convinced there's enough for notability generally. GedUK 17:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I created this article using User:Organismluvva as a legitimate sock as part of WP:NEWT. I won't be participating further in this discussion. Smartse (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (barely) - Subject seems... well notable enough to prevent deletion. I think the 2 brothers or their drug smuggling operation are significantly more notable than this sham company, though. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK 10:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to satisfy the GNG and is a plausible search term.
- 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.