Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANCA (company) (2nd nomination)

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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, Joe Chill is right. If more sources aren't found then we will be back here again in a few months. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANCA (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The consensus of the last AfD was that the only reliable source with significant coverage is this and that the article needs more work. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks to me like a pretty important company with global presence.Ekem (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deadline on improvements. If one finds an old AfD that was a keep with improvements and it wasn't improved, the thing to do is to try to improve it. It's a shame such keeps get neglected afterwards, but at least we can try to remedy the lack of work. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination isn't because of improvements. It's because of only one reliable source with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Global company with a reliable reference. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason for deletion. This article can be improved through editing. Movementarian (Talk) 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not my reason. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I inferred it from "and that the article needs more work" and was commenting on the last concensus, which was added as a comment. Movementarian (Talk) 16:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any company that wins the Australian Exporter of the year award is notable. Also, it did not take much effort to find the following:
- Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust) award (which I have added) and also the
- Premier of Victoria Hall of Fame Award "Victorian Manufacturing Hall of Fame" (which I have also added).
- The list of clients is also impressive, so I have added them.
- This is a B2B company so it is never going to feature highly in the mainstream press.
- (WP:AFD) says "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist."
- Please make an effort to fix an article before putting it up for AfD. The list of patents referred to in the previous AfD is also notable. AWHS (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)AWHS (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.