Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investment Corporation of Dubai (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with only keep !votes. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Corporation of Dubai[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)

~~Investment company does not meet notability standards, as per previous AfD. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sovereign wealth funds may not be inherently notable (?), but one of the top ten funds in the world is bound to have enough RS sigcov to establish notability, even if the sources currently cited don't suffice (and I'm not saying that they don't — look pretty good to me). And no, this isn't an argument for inheritability etc., merely saying that a BEFORE would have surely uncovered more and better refs. Granted, the article is written in a promotional style with peacockery etc. and hence needs a thorough weeding, but I say let's keep and improve. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per reasoning laid out by DoubleGrazing. Being one among the ten largest Sovereign wealth funds in the world[1] and the fifth largest fund in the Middle east[2] alone makes it notable in my opinion. I see enough coverage in reliable sources in the article itself and there are plenty more online. The article needs to be edited for an encyclopedic tone in some places though. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable sovereign wealth fund --Devoke water 22:10, 15 April 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.