Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher International Pty Ltd


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 03:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Kingfisher International Pty Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

notability. possible peacocking and conflict of interest. RichardMills65 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My first impression is certainly Keep. If some of the article's claims can be substantiated with references, it surely establishes notability. The Frost and Sullivan reports look like very reliable sources, but I believe the text is only available by subscription. Business Victoria does place their establishment in 1986, but I can't confirm whether or not that makes them one of the "oldest" fiber optic test companies. I might however suggest renaming the article to simply "Kingfisher International" to better follow naming guidelines. Noir (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Independent coverage about the company exists, see, The Age, both the articles contain sufficient information to prove notability (The Age/D&B Business Award (1999) Governor of Victoria export award (2002), "... a leader in fibre optic test equipment with customers in 70 countries" etc.),  (State Government Victoria) Of course, the content of our article needs to be carefully edited, verified, protected against spamming etc ... but I disagree with deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: with Vejvančický there is notability, but article needs work. -- Dewritech (talk)  15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad article but they are notable. More coverage:  -    -  . note that Frost & Sullivan are not an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (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.