Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries

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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries[edit]

[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)

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (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.