Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syarah

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syarah

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Presented sources are mere routine coverage about funding that all startups normally receive these days. Nothing to show WP:CORPDEPTH. Hitro talk 13:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Hitro talk 13:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the current sources, analyzing the company's history and talking independently about its activity and achievements, are enough to prove eligibility. They are mainly in arabic but from quality medias.--Art&football (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of the references in the article reveals the following:
- This from alarabiya.net relies entirely on information provided by the company and executives, it has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
- The alikhbariya.com website is a blog, the article is posted by an anonymous "admin" and there is no information in the Who We Are section, fails WP:RS.
- This on elmareekh.com has no attributed author/journalist and no information on whether any editorial overview exists. The article itself relies on generic information and descriptions including company announcements and has no "Independent Content". Fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND
- This in jawlah.co has no attributed journalist nor is there any information about their contributors available on the website, fails WP:RS. The article itself relies on a company announcement and information from the executives and the company and has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Arabic Reporter has no attributed journalist, the website is a blog and the article is attributed to "admin", fails WP:RS.
- This from menabytes.com is based on a funding announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from entrepreneur.com is based on a funding announcement and quotes from the founder, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from almijharalarabi.com is three sentences with no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
- This from wamda.com is based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Waya is also based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Forbes is a profile after the company announced new funding and relies on information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
- This from Al Jazeera is based on a company announcement and includes the text of the press release, fails ORGIND
- Another from the Mena News network which suffers from the same problems as thearabicreporter and almijharalarabi references (part of the same "group") in that there is no attributed journalist, no information of who is involved, no indications of any editorial oversight, article attributed to "admin", fails WP:RS. The references is also a mere three sentences, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from sabq.org also has no attributed journalist, has no information on any contributors, no indications of editorial oversight, fails WP:RS. The article itself appears to rely entirely on information provided by the company and their executives with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND

The references provided and all of the others I can find are regurgitations of company announcements and basic company information provided by the execs. None provide original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:26, 8 September 2022 (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.