Cityscape Global : Ciudatul ( talk ) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Ciudatul ( talk ) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP ; no coverage of any kind in sources other than obscure and likely unreliable tech blogs.    ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : lots of in-depth coverage; easily meets WP:NCORP .  See Google news (ex: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] etc.).  It might need a bit of cleanup but deletion is certainly not warranted.  I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE .  C F A 💬 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 8 is too buggy to open without registering, 9 appears to be a trade journal (not a RS), 10 is a brief PR item, as is 11.  12 is fine I suppose.  13 is a staff report about an award given out, somewhat related.  Most of these are not terribly helpful.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, though there is a lot of coverage online of this event.  The articles above were just a few I found by skimming the first page of Google news .  For example, here is another article from Arab News , here is one from Gulf News , here is one in the Entrepreneur magazine, here is one in the Gulf Business magazine, here is one from Gulf Today , and the list goes on and on.  The subject is definitely notable (it is covered in-depth by many, many independent reliable sources), you just might have to wade through some routine press releases to get there.  C F A 💬 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Coverage" is not part of the criteria, the content of said coverage must include in-depth "Independent Content" about the topic.  Looking at the sourcing you've referenced, this in Arab News is word-for-word the same as this article published the following day and shares the same information as this article also.  Clearly the content is regurgitated PR.  This in Gulf News is undoubtedly a PR piece which relies entirely on the mentioned company (and which also fails CORPDEPTH in any case).  This in Entrepreneur is yet more PR, same details published in other places around the same time using the exact same information and descriptions, e.g. this .  Exact same problems with this in Gulf Business - just regurgitated PR announcing details of the upcoming event.  Note also how none of those articles have any attributed journalists.  Finally, we get to this in Gulf Today which went around interviewing sponsors and exhibitors - none of this is in-depth "Independent Content" about the event.  None of the above references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand by my vote.  Arab News and Entrepreneur are both independent and reliable and don't do PR/promotion.  Whether the article was republished from a news agency doesn't really matter in terms of notability.  I am not familiar with Gulf News , though it seems to be a newspaper of record and I see no evidence of it doing promotional stories.  The Gulf Today piece does not cover the event itself in-depth, but it can be strung together with many other similar stories (check Google News) to meet GNG.  C F A 💬 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most coverage of this conference/trade show is in PR items, talking about the show.  I don't see much beyond lists of awards or PRish news items.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG/ WP:NCORP , none of the sourcing I can locate meets the criteria for notability.  HighKing ++ 20:26, 15 July 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.

Discussion outcome: delete