Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabah Gas Industries


 * 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. Discussion seems to indicate recognition of substantial improvement by citation since nomination; even nominator is convinced. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sabah Gas Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Although it has some media coverage, it is hardly a subject of significant coverage. If there will be significant coverage, the article still needs total rewriting. Therefore I propose to delete for now and, if necessary, restart it from scratch. Beagel (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Beagel's thinking on this one. Johnfos (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely unsourced. If significant sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per, ,,,,, , and more. WP:UGLY or WP:NOEFFORT are arguments to avoid in a discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The 6th reference is a derivative from Wikipedia, the 8th reference is not about the company. As for other references, these newspaper articles are mentioning the company but it seems not to be a "significant coverage" per WP:CORP. The first one is about the company's officer was arrested for taking a bribe (this definitely does not establish the notability of the company), third reference just mentioning the company once saying that the company developed a methanol plant which was bailed out by Petronas in 1992. Again, not significant coverage. The second, fourth and seventh references are about putting the company to the privatization and the fifth references says that the company started to receive gas from the Samarang oilfield. These references may count for some kind of notability but probably not enough per WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't noticed the 6th reference is a derivative from Wikipedia...true. Anyway second, fourth, fifth and seventh are significant coverage, agreed? This one is also significant coverage. Let's add other sources of less weight (including several sources I have not linked above, such as or ). This one seems also not-so-trivial: ... this one, seems also in somewhat manner not trivial from preview . Even this one does not appear trivial. In general, "Google Books" reveals 4270 book sources for this subject, that is not bad, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per NA1000, and the article is linked to important articles. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Bloomberg has an article about the company that suggests the current article is dated.  Nonetheless, WP:GNG notability of the company is established.  I also have referred to WP:UGLY as cited by Cavarrone.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn nomination. The article is rewritten and updated and its notability is established. Beagel (talk) 11:39, 28 July 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.