Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindeteves-Jacoberg Limited


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lindeteves-Jacoberg Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. This is the only source approaching significant independent coverage that I can find. Company reports are useless for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is coverage in the Drives & Controls magazine: http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=383, http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=1843 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin of locksley (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article is a mess - in particular the references are improperly listed and not independent. However there is quite a bit of coverage at Google News Archive. I added a couple of references to the article, including the fact that it is listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange; WP:LISTED suggests that we will probably find sufficient coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment I just did a rewrite for style and coherence, so the article looks a lot better now. Granted, writing style is not a reason to keep or delete, but still it is easier to evaluate an article that is properly written. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 August 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.