Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate

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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate

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

Unclear what the article is about, since the United Kingdom does not have government guaranteed "trading estates". It is perhaps something to do with a public sector company that builds industrial estates (a construction company). In the meantime it appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the UK in the article appears to be a cultural cringe rather than anything substantive. This source says that one of these estates was the largest industrial estate in Pakistan in 1991, and other reliable sources are found by the searches automically provided by the nomination process. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has established 8 industrial estates in Sindh province. There are plenty of sources like DAWN and Daily Times, hence notable. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources isn't enough to meet CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have had three example of sources linked in this discussion, and they are obviously, from the spoon-fed links automatically provided above, not the only ones. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if someone will kindly rewrite the article so it makes sense this can be dealt with. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by people doing the work that they want done themselves rather than demanding that others do it. I prefer, as a volunteer like you and everyone else, to choose for myself where, if anywhere, to work. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete this page, because it is incomprehensible cruft left unsourced for 8 years with no assertion of notability. I'm just saying that if you want to keep it, kindly improve it to match your comments. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is incomprehensible to you then you need to improve your English comprehension. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the main issue has been dealt with, but what does this mean? These facilities were designed to create an industrial environment congenial for intending industrialists if not industrial facilities were provided this article is either about a company or an industrial estate, it seems to be both! This needs to be dealt with at some convenient point. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:26, 10 September 2017 (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.