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. J04n(talk page) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitab Mela

[edit]
Kitab Mela (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)

This is a promotional article some relatively small online book store+publisher which also organised a bunch of book events. It received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. WP:Existence ≠ Notability Saqib (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 07:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but Existence does not prove notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: It is not really a publishing company. As per their official website they are distributors of books+magazines. An online store which sell books. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it seems that "Kitab Mela" is also associated with a Book Fair or Exhibition. Two of the references in the article which use this term have nothing to do with the company. HighKing++ 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: There is no significant coverage in Urdu language sources. --Saqib (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib:. Entirely possible. But, as you are the nom, this should be double checked by someone else. (I would expect the same if I was a nom.) Ross-c (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2018 (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.