Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SCG industries

This corporation is significant as it operates the only commercial enterprise in the Antarctic region. Supporting references will be provided shortly. Bobkeyes (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A google search for "elephant island" "scg industries" brings up only wikipedia. They seem to be very quiet about themselves, yet seem to be doing very interesting research, as well as being unique in being a commercial activity in antarctica. I think this article should be kept and hopefully expanded so we can learn a bit more about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.249.10 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are unique indeed, in operating a nonexistent Antarctic base. Apcbg (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they don't have an Anarctic base, they're sure going to great lengths to fake it. I just had a job interview with them, here in Cambridge, and they had pictures, diagrams, maps, and whiteboards with projects at the base on it. I'd be working out of the Cambridge office, though, developing energy storage technology. Dmwz (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no SCG project submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which would have been required both by the US Antarctic legislation and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Furthermore, the establishment of a new Antarctic facility would have needed the approval of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting taken by 28 states by consensus; no such proposal has been tabled there either. And finally, recent high resolution satellite images of Elephant Island show no traces of any activities like those alleged in this article. Apcbg (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is wikipedia solely for companies and operations which operate under US law and those who have signed certain treaties? Have either Poland or Hungary signed this treaty? You editors are treating it as such. What high-resolution satellite images are you using, and how old are they? I think you've jumped the gun on this one. You don't present your 'evidence' and rely merely on non-existance in sourced which you have at your fingertips. True scholarship requires more than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.55.175 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?
I downgraded this from speedy deletion to a 7-day proposed deletion. The Google news archives link gave nothing significant. Any wikiprojects that have tagged this talk page can get notice of this proposed deletion through WP:Article alerts. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)