Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TH Heavy Engineering Berhad


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

TH Heavy Engineering Berhad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company. Sources provided do not establish notability. ♟♙ (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If asking me off course I want the article to be remain in wikipedia but it's up to you. I'd try my best. This is my reasons:

1)Sources from The Edge, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters already strong. Who doesn't know them right? The reason this media outlet cover this company off course because it well known. I'd also observed that there a lot of company page in Wikipedia that their notability low than this. Some only had one source and even worse that one source is not reliable enough. If that page passed why not this?

2)This company is LISTED company in Bursa Malaysia. It is Public limited company and publicly trade. Big and notable enough.(see references in page)

3)This company client includes Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, ExxonMobil, Sarawak Shell Berhad, Sabah Shell Petroleum Co., Talisman Energy Malaysia Ltd., Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, Keppel Corporation FELS, MHES Asia Sdn Bhd, Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, New eld Exploration Co., Woodside Petroleum PLC, Murphy Oil Sarawak Oil Co., Ltd. That notable enough to me. If some wikipedian don't ever heard about this company it doesn't mean its not notable. Who are we compared to that big companies that already be its clients.

4)UPDATED as June 22 2021, Added source from Google Books

Cheers :)

Kistara (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No non-trivial coverage. The WSJ and Reuters "sources" are just stock price trackers, and all the other sources are either not reliable, not independent, or consistent of only trivial coverage. The fact that the company has had important clients does not make it notable by itself. When the best argument for keeping is that other stuff exists, then the article should not be kept. Mlb96 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As already stated, none of the sources contain significant coverage, and the article does not pass WP:GNG. — F ORMAL D UDE  ( talk ) 22:57, 25 June 2021 (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.