Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSA Jeddah

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TSA Jeddah

[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)

There is nothing to indicate notability. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with the key people involved in the company (note that the company isn't even mentioned on the Wiki bios of the key people who run the company). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there really does not seem to be anything that indicates notability. It's been somewhat hard to find references due to the TSA popping up quite often in false positives, but on the whole I can't find anything that has this pass WP:NCORP. Being owned by the state doesn't make it notable per WP:INHERIT. I don't really think there's a whole lot of info in the article that would be worthwhile keeping for a merge to be honest as the people who are most important to the company largely seem to own it due to their position in the state with regards to petrochemicals and it being a petrochemical company. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:44, 24 November 2021 (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.