Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rrjedha

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rrjedha

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

This is an article about a publishing house. It is written in extremely poor English, and it is very hard to understand. It is probably machine-translated from Albanian. The subject lacks the WP:NOTABILITY. There are zero reliable independent sources cited in the article. All sources cited are either the company's own sites, or are writeen by the company owner ([1]) or are dead links, or do not mention the company at all. It is hard to look for reliable sources using Google Search because Rrjedha means simply "stream" in Albanian. As far as I was able to search, I found no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 08:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, no coverage in English (I know it's not required, but if nobody appears to vouch for foreign sources, it fails WP:V), badly written to the point that it is unclear what claim to notability could be there. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (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.