Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veda (company)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Veda (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Veda claims to be the largest  company  of it  kind in ANZ, but  apart from  B2B listings no  independent 3rd party  sources have been found despite the efforts of at  least  two  editors. The ACCC report is reliable regarding  the claim, but  is only  a listing. The same for its previous existence as Baycorp Advantage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC) *Delete - Not enough reliable coverage to justify inclusion. The only reason it was not an A7 was because the first sentence effectively said "Hey! This thing is important because it's important!". I was considering PROD'ing it but now that this has launched that can no longer be done. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that "the largest credit reference agency in Australia and New Zealand" is not a claim of importance is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Anyone applying for a mortgage, bank loan or credit card in those countries will have the decision made on the basis of data held by this company. How is that not important? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added various references and info on the extent of the company's data and reference presence in Australia. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now that someone has come forward with reliable sources to verify the article's claims there is no reason to delete. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 09:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep because it passes WP:GNG:, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources provided above show notability of the topic. Sailodge (talk) 15:39, 15 September 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.