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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RA International[edit]

RA International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT. The article cites ^[1], but this appears to be routine coverage and I am further uncertain if it's a reliable source. The only other in-depth coverage in a secondary source that I was able to find was ^[2], but this is a textbook case of a Forbes profile disqualified by WP:ORGCRIT.

That having been said, given the company's HQ being located in Dubai and its operations being focused in East African countries (and ones that don't have English as an official language at that), this may be a case of WP:WORLDVIEW and I would invite dissenting opinions provided they can cite reliable sources with in-depth coverage.

It may also be worth noting that the logo currently included on the page is almost certainly a WP:COPYVIO, as the uploader has claimed that it is their own work while also claiming that they have no conflict of interest with the subject. These claims cannot both be true, and under the premise of good faith I'm inclined to assume the latter is true. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the logo should be deleted from Commons and re-uploaded locally (PD-ineligible US only). As to the article, if a company is publicly traded on a major stock exchange (not just pink sheets or something), then it's almost certainly notable. It's not an American company and so it's not necessarily as easy to find English news about it, but it's a publicly traded company with 1600 employees? Yes, that's notable. --B (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LISTED (part of WP:ORGCRITE), being publicly traded is not immediately grounds for notability. Googling '"RA International " stock analysis' returns some listings that aren't in-depth, and more in-depth coverage from Simply Wall St.^[1], although it is unclear if they are a reliable source. Meanwhile, sources like Reuters^[2] do not have any coverage beyond the price-- their "Analysis" and "News" tabs for the company are totally blank. While I agree that it being a company operating largely outside of the English-speaking world makes finding articles about them more difficult (and would be happy to withdraw the AfD if non-English coverage were provided), we can't simply conclude in the absence of English coverage that it is notable by default. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of this company was thin prior to it listing on the London Stock Exchange in June 2018. Inevitably as with any IPO, a listing will result in an increase in mentions, including on many sites which collate data and churn it out algorithmically under the guise of a "written news article". A one man hat company who listed on the LSE would also generate articles and subsequent computer generated coverage. RA International itself is also a relatively small company, by exchange standards (£130m) and is listed on the smaller sub-market of the LSE, AIM. Non-notable in my opinion. Uhooep (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:ORGCRIT --Jay (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The references in the article are routine coverage of an IPO. The best my own searching turned up was a Forbes article, but it's a contributed piece ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"), and an interview, both of which reduce the weight we would normally give it. It's also more about Soraya Narfeldt than RA International. If this was one of several good sources, it would have some value in a supporting role, but it's far from enough on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2018 (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.