Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuwait Space Rocket

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Space Rocket

[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)

Seems a bit soon for this. While there are a couple of sources describing the project, I don't think this project meets the inclusion criteria. Kees08 (Talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia article describes a new project in that region of the world, which is a noteworthy topic with various supported sources.Naserology (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to reflect the maturity of the project please take a look, i added a section on the developmental process with related picturesNaserology (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage from two reliable secondary sources: 1) Al-Seyassah 2) Al-Anba Sulfurboy (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd put this in the same category as any other product being developed, while it might be notable in the future when it's finished, it's not currently. Even with the two articles. The Al-Seyassah one doesn't load anyway. Whereas, the second Al-Anba article is a none neutral article full of POV issues that doesn't even give a timeline for the rocket. Except to say something about Kuwait being in space by 2025. So at best the rocket is still 5 years off from completion if not more. Which is way to far for an article. Especially with no coverage. Also, Naserology clearly isn't independent of the subject as the main editor of the article, it being the only article the user has edited, and also uploading a bunch of photos directly from the project that Naserology says is their own work. Personally, I say delete now and revisit it if and when the rocket is actually created and becomes notable. A few puff pieces and a couple of pictures of bolts don't cut it though. Same as it wouldn't with any other product at this point in its development. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Interesting topic with enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more source analysis as to whether added sources are significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Info
Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) is an official state news wire service based in Kuwait. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_News_Agency
Al Anba is an Arabic-language Kuwaiti daily newspaper. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anba_(Kuwait)
Al-Seyassah is a Kuwaiti daily newspaper published by Dar Al-Seyassah Press Publishing Printing and Distribution Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Seyassah
Al-Qabas is an Arabic daily Kuwaiti newspaper published by Dar Al Qabas Press https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qabas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naserology (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, all are based on interviews/quotations from individuals connected with the organization and project, therefore failing WP:ORGIND. I am unable to find any references, in any language, that meets the criteria for establishing notability. While the sources are reliable, that is only one part of the criteria. Another vital part is that the references must contain "Independent Content" as defined in WP:ORGIND and the references fail this check. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a news story includes an interview of those involved in a project, doesn't mean that the news story automatically should be treated as a primary source. Media coverage has editorial oversight and investigative research typically before going forward with a story. In this case, I think the criteria for WP:SIGCOV is met.4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (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.