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. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaymu Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

not notable enough that it merit an entry on WP. i have removed references that are not reliable enough to be cited here. Saqib (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article cites reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. In future, should Draft:Kaymu is accepted, this article might be merged into Kaymu and the portion of article dealing with Rocket Internet in Pakistan with Rocket Internet.  sami  ^talk 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: @Samee: Thanks for your cooperation in making this a better version for readers. I would like to inform that there are several valuable points with me about Kaymu Pakistan, but I couldn't find reliable sources for them. Once I got a hold of a few, I will update further information.

I just saw Draft:Kaymu and this is full of errors, would you like me to update the content and sources as I have several reliable sources and exactly know what needs to be improved.

@Hariskhan12345: Please don't ping users unnecessarily. Also remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. There is no surety that this article will be kept rather it would depend on the consensus. As you're a new user and you're probably unfamiliar with many processes especially AfDs; I would like to inform you that you too can participate in the discussion by voting Keep or Delete etc with your arguments.  sami  ^talk 18:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Draft:Kaymu at present is comparatively better than Kaymu Pakistan. You're welcome to edit but please don't mess up things with bias, puffery, and peacock terms. As you said there are several valuable points about the subject not supported by reliable sources, you should not write them as they'd constitute original research and it would be obvious use of Wikipedia for advertisement and promotional purposes.  sami  ^talk 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion Sami

• Keep I would suggest to keep Kaymu Pakistan because the current material with article has strong references and offer authentic information. Samee Thanks for your suggestions. will make edits accordingly. Hariskhan12345 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw — Since reliable references have been added. I withdraw this deletion nomination. --Saqib (talk) 06:05, 8 June 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.