Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySyara (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 no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject. The previous AfD discussion was closed with "no consensus" but brought up concerns of the quality of reliable sourcing used in the article. At the time of writing, the majority of the cited sources are routine business announcements, such as financing developments (ref 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24), acquisitions (ref 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21), and business partnerships (ref 15, 16, 25, 26), that fail WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding the other, more substantial cited sources: Gheus noted in the discussion that ref 1 contains a disclosure for a paid article; the bulk of ref 2 is an interview with the CEO; and much of the text of ref 4 is based on the outlet's interview with the co-founders (e.g., "according to the business partners"). Bridget (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Transportation, and United Arab Emirates. Bridget (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Goodboyjj: sources in the first AfD, looks enough for WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were sources identified in the first AFD that passed WP:NCORP. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone creates a source analysis table as directed at WP:SIRS and demonstrates through detailed analysis that WP:ORGCRIT isn't met by analyzing both those sources and the ones present in the article in detail.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, there are some immediately apparent concerns with those sources. Goodboyjj, the article creator, presented these links with the claim that they "establish notability", and that claim was not really analyzed or challenged during the AfD. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bridget
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes Middle East		WP:TRADES applies, as a business magazine associated with the Forbes brand	Forbes 30 Under 30 list entry honoring the founders and providing a brief business history	✘ No
The National News	WP:INTERVIEW applies; as mentioned in the AfD rationale above and that of the previous AfD, the article content (not including the Q&A at the end of the article) heavily draws from the outlet's interview with the co-founders. Uses phrases such as "according to the business partners".	but note that this is a state-owned newspaper and, per Financial Times, "is seen as a mouthpiece for Abu Dhabi's worldview."		✘ No
Middle East Business		WP:TRADES applies	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement); the lead states: "MySyara today announced plans to expand its operations and launch a new suite of services, aiming to provide car owners with more convenient and affordable ways to manage their vehicle maintenance and repair services." (original text in Arabic)	✘ No
Experience Abu Dhabi		travel blog which states in its website description: "Discover top Abu Dhabi attractions, events, dining, and travel guides."	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement): "MySyara’s full range on-demand services will be made available to customers in Abu Dhabi"	✘ No
Jawlah			WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments; reports that "Car maintenance app MySyara secures $400,000 investment" (original text in Arabic)	✘ No
Zawya	marked as press release from company	WP:TRADES applies; "ZAWYA by LSEG is a leading and trusted source of regional business and financial news and intelligence for millions of professionals across the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa."	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments: "MySyara launches the first cloud garage network in the UAE in partnership with Mobil UAE"	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bridget (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridget This is a good start. I suggest continuing with the many other materials currently cited in the article. I'll hold off responding until you are finished. Ping me when your source analysis is complete. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: In this AfD, 32 sources have been shown to not contribute to a GNG pass. What other (SIRS) sources would you base your keep vote on, given we've looked at the ones you're citing from the previous AfD? Bridget (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget you have not provided specific reasoning for 32 sources in a meaningful way; only the five listed in the table. If you wish to cite WP:CORPDEPTH as a rationale you actually need to do a SIRS analysis for every source in the table. Listing a bunch of sources in your nomination and then vaguely nodding towards CORPDEPTH without actually doing a proper SIRS analysis isn't going to cut it. It doesn't sufficiently explain your thinking. If you want to claim CORPDEPTH put it in the table and give us a real analysis of why it doesn't meet SIRS. There's a reason why we have the table at that guideline. Use it to your advantage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with the analysis of nom that this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:CORPTRIV cannot be used to meet WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2025 (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.