Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon global group holding

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. Wikipedia is not here to "create awareness" of companies which have not reached the notability standard of WP:CORP, or for companies to tell the world about themselves. It may well be that some of the other articles listed should also be nominated for deletion, but the presence of some company articles with no independent sourcing is not a reason for allowing more. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon global group holding

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable company, no organisation depth in sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Note to those commenting here, there is an ongoing SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofME- this is also a discussion not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason of creating such page Falcon Global Group Holding is to create awareness about companies in developing countries such of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, most of the saudi large companies are listed on Wikipedia with no sources Article, news, etc., because this is how it works developing countries. Check these links below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Turki_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulla_Fouad_Group_of_Companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balubaid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Husein_Alireza_%26_Co._Ltd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawarid_Holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Alireza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olayan_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezayat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamimi_Group

Endless list. If we deleted them all, we wont have any information about 90% of the large companies there. However, I am not sure why you trying to delete Falcon Global Group Holding among other. I dont work there nor I know anyone there, But you seems work in rival company or something, since you left all these companies and focused on one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofME (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — HistoryofME (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument. You've not given any evidence the company is actually notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joseph2302 the fact is that there is no credible source on the page for the existence and notability of the company. It seems this is an attempt to gain credibility and visibility through pointing to the existence of a dedicated Wikipedia article. I have not reviewed the other companies that were linked to above, but if their existence is also based on evidence that is as flimsy as this, then they should be deleted as well. I am new to editing articles, and I would imagine that my opinion does not carry much weight, but I have to start somewhere. I would also note that the user User:HistoryofME is credited with the creation of the article, according to the page's history. I would not that when considering a possible bias on his part that might lead him to defend the article's continued existence Goldenstandard (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Does not meet the notability guideline for corporations or the general guideline. The state of other articles, though unfortunate, is not relevant here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's also worth noting that Falcon Global Group Holding was deleted in the past under WP:A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. While I think this article narrowly avoids the same as a result of its Dubai 2020 involvement, as I mentioned on the article's talk page, it clearly does not meet WP:GNG.

@HistoryofME:, please note that this is nothing against you or this company. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While our notability criteria are slightly broader than an actual encyclopedia, merely because of the nature of the site, Wikipedia is only intended to hold information that is of enduring encyclopedic value. Even setting WP:GNG aside for a moment, I think most people would agree that a five year old company with no significant news coverage beyond a brief mention does not have encyclopedic value at this time, as vague and difficult to define as that term is. This does not mean that the company doesn't have value or that it won't have encyclopedic value in the future. This could just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~ Rob^Talk 04:28, 20 June 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.