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 keep !votes are unconvincing and not policy-based. Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan ul Faqr Publications[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I posted on the article's talk page a month ago saying that I would take it to AfD, some discussion ensued but it was almost entirely non-constructive, and the article was not improved. I looked for proof of notability and couldn't find anything; the article's author hasn't provided any additional sources either in this time. The article initially had more references but I removed them as invalid or unreliable, see article history. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I just learned that this topic has been up for AfD before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. and was deleted. But I think it would be good to let the current AfD run its course (instead of speedying). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google news search returned zero results. And a websearch returned only primary or unreliable sources. Clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Non-notable company—TripWire ^talk 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above as well, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC) - blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already notable and reliable sources available for this article in the ‘books’ and ‘scholar’ categories listed here if you click them. It is a notable company. The references removed were infact evidences for the notability of the publication house and hence, served as reliable sources which were not primary as already explained in the talk page repeatedly. ‘The author’ did provide sources in this time but you removed them and left the article with only its primary sources. Let me list the sources again:

Open Library [1]

Marymartin [2]

Britannica [3]

ISSU [4]

SCRIBD [5]

buyurdunovels.com [6]

According to User:Jeraphine Gryphon even Britannica and Marymartin are unreliable sources even if contributions, disregarding the fact that everything published by such sites appears only after the review of experienced editor team.

Also, the article is a stub and of course requires improvement but this does not qualify the article to get deleted. Various other publication pages exist as stubs and the far less content and certainly less or no sources. It is a biased decision to even tag this article as deleted. The article was created on the 8th July 2015 and like most articles in general require time for improvement by editors so does this article.

Talk:Sultan ul Faqr Publications

Talk Jeraphine Gryphon [7] [8] [9]

The article is about a trivial publication house which is the centre and subject for many reliable sources itself. If it has not experienced an event to attract media coverage, etc. it dos not mean that the company is not notable. It's notability is that it is a known publisher itself and hence, the provider of sources.

Markangle11 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) User:Markangle11 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

All of those "sources" are useless. marymartin.com is a bookseller, a bookseller listing books to sell isn't exactly a claim to notability. The Britannica link definitely looks like user-submitted content and is therefor unreliable and unusable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not-unreliable. Perhaps can be included in a scholarly review. Markangle11 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think so. ""The best Sufi flavor this spring!" by Abdur the Anonymous" doesn't sound very academic to me. There's also a handy "report this contribution" button right under the post, I'm assuming it's there because Britannica itself doesn't review user submissions. (And if you go here then there's an "add your contribution" button there, this is clearly just user-submitted content and nothing else.) And besides that, what are we even using that source for? It's a two-sentence review of a book and hardly mentions any facts we could use to talk about the publisher (if it were a reliable source). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sultan ul Faqr Publications does not advertise itself as it is non-commercial. It is dependent upon funds and contributions which is which is why it should not be expected that it would have media news. The publication runs mainly on its online readership system where e-books can be downloaded for free. Hence, if significant coverage in independent sources cannot be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Both the editors belong to remote countries from Pakistan User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Estonia) and User:Onel5969 ~~(New York)~~ but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this publication and publication houses in Pakistan simply because it does not advertise.Markangle11 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in question adheres to WP:N. It is one of the most known publisher in Pakistan amongst others such as Sang-e-Meel Publications. I have often come across Sultan ul Faqr Publications when researching on Sufism. Its books rank the highest when one googles Sufi related items such as [10], [11],[12], etc. Demington (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Demington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of those links you offer go to notability. They show the existence of the publisher, but not their notability, since they are not about the publisher. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: @ User:Onel5969 earlier in your comment you said, "google news search] returned zero results. And a websearch returned only primary or unreliable sources". This statement misguides people.

please try this [13]. It provides a list of full results. Markangle11 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - statement was accurate, and I provided the links. To categorize it by saying it "misguides people", is inaccurate, and kinda not AGF. Your link is a websearch, and quite frankly, doesn't do much regarding proving notability. The first several pages return not a single independent reliable source which has substantial coverage of the publisher (all primary sources, tangential mentions of the company, blogs, or mirrors of the Wikipedia page, etc.). Furthermore, using the pk google with a news search, which is much more appropriate in terms of notability, provides this result, another nil factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

Response: google pk or international, you missed the point. The web search provides a list of sources for the magazine, not talking abut news but about the web. Markangle11 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Didn't miss the point. As both Jeraphine Gryphon have explained (or at least attempted to explain), none of those sources show the notability of the publisher. They only show the existence of the publisher. But we've both made our points, an admin will adjudicate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response:As already cited above, sources -reliable sources exist whether you consider them or not is not the question as that is for the admin to decide. However, there is credible indication of why the subject is important or significant. I have already given above at leat 5 sources which are not primary sources and are independent and reliable sources. On the other hand, if you "think" that these are not notable (who knows why) then there is a list of popular books it has published with which you may like to acknowledge yourself [14]. This fulfills the criteria for recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes an should be kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Markangle11 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Library is a booklisting site, a book being listed there doesn't mean anything. Same for booksellers like marymartin and buyurdunovels, you're just linking to listed books. And then there's the publisher's Issuu and Scribd pages, those count as primary sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to WP:LISTPURP? This article is not a list and doesn't contain any lists. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To inform you that informational articles exist. Markangle11 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article should not be deleted. I have done some research on it and found that this publication does meet WP:N [15]. It is not only about the publication, it is also about the work that the publication is doing. The books it publishes are popular and notable …People turn to Wikipedia to learn about the credentials of a particular topic and this is what Wikipedia users want. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information and providing sources is secondary. To say that the article of a particular publication should be removed because it not notable is ticking off the fact that users are only going to learn about the publication from Wikipedia itself and this in itself a necessary criteria for the article to keep. The contributions made by this publication with reference to Islam/Sufism cannot be disregarded. It would not be wrong to call them unique or prolific in the field of Sufism. Give me one good reason for deleting this article based on publication and not any other article on publication from the List of Urdu language book publishing companies. Be fair and offer justice here on Wikipedia. All the web sources cited talk about Sultan ul Faqr Publications. Despite the references, the publication house is clearly known for its books all over the web as well as nationally in Pakistan. The article does not violate any Wikipedia rule. In fact, Wikipedia itself encourages publishing material relevant to the notability focusing on high-quality secondary or external sources which in this case have been cited as Britannica, Marymartin, ISSUE, etc.JugniSQ (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the fact that users are only going to learn about the publication from Wikipedia itself and this in itself a necessary criteria for the article to keep" -- no, it really isn't.

I already stated above why the references don't help with notability, did you read what I said? Do you have a response? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. read comment as the response. JugniSQ (talk) 09:39, 11 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.