Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec


 * 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 (WP:TNT). Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Civmec

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Corporate article of questionable notability with no independent sources. The sources are the company's own and LinkedIn. Appears to be undisclosed paid editing being moved from draft space to article space after being declined. No significant coverage found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The last two comments suggest there may be some amount of notability here, merits further discussion
 * Delete. Agree this appears to be paid editing and very partial. Main contributor is called ArafuraClassOPV, the name bound to the subject matter. Whole article is written in badly formed English, such as "The company has manufactured from Naval ships to oil refineries...". Teraplane (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, multiple issues. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've no doubt a publicly-listed A$400m-turnover company employing 2,000 staff is notable in the 'real world' sense of the word; it seems odd that better references cannot be found to satisfy WP notability (my turn to try, I suppose). Equally odd, if they really engaged a COI editor to cobble this together, you'd have thought they'd manage something better than this. But I guess stranger things have happened... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There appears to be quite a lot of news coverage on Google News, particularly of the shipyard (Forgacs Shipyard) that it took over, but also of its mining business. While the current article is awful, the subject probably is notable enough for some sort of coverage, with at the the least a redirect to Forgacs Shipyard if the community does decide to apply WP:TNT.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: It seems to be paid editing as well as blatant advertising. The whole facilities section uses 'our', which seems to tell me that they might be writing on behalf on the company, or that it was directly copied from some parts of its website.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  03:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Promotional article, seems to be done by paid editor Alex-h (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.