Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fajer 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Al Fajer Group[edit]
- Al Fajer Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted after being tagged as advertising, bringing here to community to assess after it was re-created. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up While there may be some promotional language among the sections, the company (specifically its Al Fajer Properties subsidiary) has been the subject of significant news coverage (not all of it very flattering). As long as the article can maintain a fair balance, I believe it deserves to be retained. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up per WikiDan61. There are enough reliable news sources for the article to verify notability, and the promotional language can be cleaned up. --Slon02 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up Needs some serious cleaning, stub it if you have to, but the subject itself clearly passes the verification criteria. Ryan Norton 10:41, 6 August 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.