Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Properties PJSC


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. signed,Rosguill talk 01:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Union Properties PJSC

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Typical large real estate development business with the sort of routine coverage all such firms receive. Not seeing the notability, and the promotional tone of the article hardly helps. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Skynxnex (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the largest developers in the country, listed on the Dubai Financial Market (and as we speak one of the 5 most traded stocks on that exchange). The article is an absolute horror, but deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of sources with which to build a reliable article. Financial scandal and the arrest of the chairman are hardly "the sort of routine coverage all such firms receive"
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available sourcing would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is true that not every company will have public investigations of illegal conduct associated with it, and there are about 7 English language news articles about this incident, but I feel I need to again emphasise there are differences between a topic that is newsworthy and one that would be notable under our guidelines. Reading those articles, I think the one that is the closest to being considered significant coverage would be the Gulf News (insofar as it is even possible to say any one of them is the "closest") and I don't think there are two consecutive sentences that would meet the commentary, analysis, discussion that we would expect from a source used to establish notability, under the GNG or basic criteria of any of our SNGs. Admittedly, there are also Arabic news articles, when searching for شركة الاتحاد العقارية, numbering roughly a gross, which is significantly more than the 84 English language news articles I get for "Union Properties" PJSC, and I am not sufficiently literate in the language to perform more than a cursory review, but of the roughly a dozen I have looked at, the contents are the textbook "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" like much of the English language coverage, which does not exactly engender confidence that qualifying coverage exists. I have serious questions whether it truly is possible to improve the article. Perhaps there are older, offline sources. Even then, that raises the question, whether there is any content currently in the article worth salvaging. Reading the actual article under discussion, there seems to be very little encyclopedic content, and one has to wonder if one would not be better served, should one find the sources, by starting entirely afresh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. NCORP has a high standard for independence (not a concern in this case), but it doesn't establish a particularly high standard for depth of coverage. I'm basing this largely on WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular this: [Appropriate] coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. I think the sources we have do go significantly beyond "brief mentions and routine announcements", particularly with regards to financial misconduct investigations (e.g. AP, Al Jazeera). There is no equivalent to BLP1E for companies, and thus, the sources we have are more than sufficient for establishing notability under NCORP, even if the appropriate sources relate to only one event. Of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but there is enough depth of coverage here to build an article beyond a permastub; another criterion from WP:CORPDEPTH. Other aspects of WP:ORGCRIT don't seem particularly contentious; there's coverage in multiple (check) reliable (check) secondary (check) sources that are independent of the subject (check). I don't see any other issues. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 19:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.