Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zameen.com (2nd nomination)

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. The notability requirements at WP:NCORP are clear, and while this company comes close to meeting it (with one qualifying source identified), notability ultimately was not demonstrated in this 3+ week long discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zameen.com

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Classic WP:MILL - there are many sources of poor quality, which do not count as reliable sources. The content is very promotional NortonAngo (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep, there are 61 sources and they all look reliable to me. Where in this article are there any promotional content? It's all written from a neutral point of view. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the cited sources are reliable (see WP:PKRS). For example, The Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Daily Pakistan, The News International. Passes WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - I think the company meets WP:MILL. The content has a bit of a promotional tone to which the nominator refers: Today, Zameen.com offers exclusive sales and marketing services to real estate developers to generate revenue.200.8.181.39 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — 200.8.181.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*:eeehh. Can't call it promotional. That seems to be there business model. Yes, Tone can be improved. I vote keep and urge you change it as well. Kmugal (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. A simple search for Google news references provides ample and up to date, lasting coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadrs (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fulfills WP:GNG There are more than 50 sources from Pakistani News Papers like Express Tribune, The News, Daily Pakistan etc. Seems legit to me. A tiny touch of promotional feel but not enough to be deleted. Fareehaaus (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It follows WP:GNG. There are multiple references in Pakistani print and digital media, and looks fine to me. I don't think it should be deleted. Thekhubaibiftikhar (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of the view that articles that are borderline notable and in which the subject consistently tries to add promotional content should be deleted (it is necessary as they become a major time sink for volunteers). This appears to be the case here, as some newbies are trying to influence the discussion. On a side note, it seems that Zameen.com's parent company, Emerging Markets Property Group, is more notable than this topic. BookishReader (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little suspect tbh but I haven't had the time to review this one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:~~Delete~~ Keep: Recent edits have made the page notable to a good extent. Overall feel is encyclopedic and promotional content is no more an issue. On the lines of WP:GNG for now. Shahramsherazi (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting the AfD to enable further discussion. The comments by blocked sockpuppets have been struck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Still succeeds WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows SIGCOV with many sources but not notable. Classic WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Insight 3. Passes WP:GNG JunitaWorker (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished reviewing all the sources yet, but it's not clear to me that any of them will pass even a GNG level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 21 pages of results for zameen.com, 14 for "Emerging Markets Property Group", a couple of variations for zameen "property portal", "Zamzama Property Group", "bproperty.com", etc, but not a single one of them suitable for GNG except maybe "Hacker defaces Zameen.com, leaks database online" in The Express Tribune, which I would rate as somewhat routine (so depth is maybe), but maybe somewhat less so and at least it's independent and not PRSOURCE. Given the coverage and article both focus on it as a business entity and not, say, a website, ORGCRIT is more appropriate than WEBCRIT, and by that standard ORGDEPTH is failed by a fairly wide margin, and ORGIND is also questionable. "Company does company things" like mergers and acquisitions, expansion, having products or merely existing is in no way significant coverage under any of our criteria. Can't find one, much less three, and the "61 sources" in the article before it was trimmed down are about the same quality as the ghits. In one word, it would be MILL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its a company and will do company things. The links are from prominent newspapers of the country they are based in. These do not seem like paid articles. The Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Daily Pakistan, Newsweek Pakistan, Khaleej Times, Aurora Megazine and TechAsia as prominent newspapers. Tone of independent articles cannot be controlled. Passes WP:GNG 203.99.55.210 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) — 203.99.55.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

BookishReader's found one source below that's usable for GNG at first glance, care to find another two to round things out? See WP:ORGCRIT for more details, but it's necessary to focus on quality, not quantity. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope that this article will stay neutral. I found one in-depth article. BookishReader (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference, meets GNG/NCORP. We need another one at least though. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources and too much promo here. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Drifting to a no consensus, but still active; one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only RS per the source bot is the last one, Aurora magazine. Some are iffy, while most don't even turn up. I can't find quality sources for the website, only simple property listings and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reference quality is relative to the region. Need to look at the overall quality of the articles in Pakistan. Cannot hold these sources to the same standards in North America or Europe. The references seem to be relevant to the region. Follows WP:GNG 202.142.187.204 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any non-english sources, in your opinion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found another in-depth reference about this website [1]. BookishReader (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This fails ORGIND, unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this relies entirely on information from the company/execs and has no "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. We appear to have identified one good source but multiple is required. If we can't identify another, my !vote is to Delete and I'm unable to locate another. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-reliable sources. Only 1 passed NCORP. Toom much promotion and paid keep-editors here. 188.96.64.166 (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL coverage, feels more like a vanity page than anything, no evidence of meeting NCORP/GNG (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 June 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.