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 no consensus. People disagree about whether the provided sources are sufficient for notability; deletion has a majority but no consensus. Sandstein 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civmec[edit]

Civmec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Corporate article of questionable notability. Previous article was deleted 20 November 2020 following deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec. Previous article was nominated because of questionable notability and a lack of independent sources, and concerns about undisclosed paid editing. Re-created on 14 December 2020 by the current author, and deleted as G4. Re-created on 26 December 2020 by the current author with an edit summary saying that it is significantly better, and with a talk page note that the sources are secondary. The current submitter also may be a paid editor. A better-sourced article about a run-of-the-mill company is still an article about a run-of-the-mill company by a possible paid editor. Of the five sources, three merely name the publication. The two that are links have been checked. Reference 3 says that the company is listed. That merely verifies a statement, and is not significant coverage. Reference 5 says that an acquisition was conducted, of a subsidiary that already has an article. That merely verifies a statement, and does not warrant a separate article on the acquiring company. The sources are slightly improved, but not very improved, and sources are a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - yet another WP:UPE attempt to create this article. MER-C 14:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. The article has merit as a ship building company of Australia that is undertaking a large build of ships for the Royal Australian Navy. I have added information and happy to review and change references as required. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - there's no evidence that the editor is paid, and the sources have improved at least somewhat from last time. The sources are on the weak side overall, but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt, some of the companies that Civmec bought (e.g. Forgacs) have a long history of shipbuilding in Australia and there should be at least some sources associated with the company. I don't agree that the article should be SALTed. Deus et lex (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources given are all announcements of routine business transactions, which WP:ORG specifically states does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CORP. Has attracted significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. [1][2][3][4][5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Press Releases and company announcements do not meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - none of these are press releases or company announcements. Deus et lex (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Hey Deus et lex they're *all* regurgitated PR and company announcements. You first need to understand that the standards for references used to support facts/etc within an article are *different* to the standards for references used to establish notability. This AfD is only interested in the latter. Then, you should read WP:NCORP and especially the WP:ORGIND section on what an "Independent" source is. It says "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject The links you've posted are all PR and announcements. For example, this announcement contains nothing original and does not contain and independent analysis/investagion/etc. All of the "facts" come straight from the company - which you can validate for yourself if you check out these "News" announcements on the Civmec website. In addition, ORGIND specifically labels any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) as "Dependent coverage". You can trace every one of your references back to announcements either from the company or from the Press Office of a government department and on reading your references I cannot see anything in those articles that can be regarded as "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not significant. Many problems with refs, no 1 is behind paywall, number 7 doesn't even mention Civmec. Teraplane (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing wrong with a source being behind a paywall (WP:PAYWALL). Hawkeye7

  • Except that most people can't view it, better to link to unrestricted web sites.
    • No it isn't. The Australian Financial Review is a major national newspaper, and important for establishing widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see in its entirety without being a subscriber, many paywalled news websites will allow a few articles to be viewed each month before the restriction kicks in. Plinjit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plinjit: I can only see the first few sentences, then get the message "You have reached an article available exclusively to subscribers" SMH alows 5 article per month, but I'm blocked from most content in AFR, The Australian etc. Teraplane (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can still see in full, must be to do with your IP or firewall. Plinjit (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@Teraplane: - Umm, ref no.7 (RAN website) first paragraph second last line clearly mentions Civmec? Am I missing something? Newm30 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry was my finger linking to next ref. I will find a replacement reference. Newm30 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just another voter countering the false assertion by Teraplane (which he has previously raised in support of other AfD): there is nothing wrong with an appropriate source being behind a paywall (nor is there anything wrong with a source being not online, such as millions of books from history). Cabrils (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cabrils: I'm not saying exclude all references behind paywall. Just suggesting that where similar unrestricted references are available they should be used, so many more people have access. Which is now the case, as Newm30 found an unrestricted replacement reference. Teraplane (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been a more accessible alternative, would be preferable to use, but the reality is that most Australian newspapers are now behind paywalls. The Financial Review isn't some sought of closed shop that only some people can view, anybody can, but they might need to be prepared to put their hand in their pocket. Plinjit (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORP. Plinjit (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google News search produces a huge number of stories on this firm [6], so the notability criteria are easily met. The current content seems OK, and isn't spammy - if anything, the Google News results suggest that it understates the scale of this business. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - having done some more research on this company it is clear they are a notable Australian company, in particular holding the contract to build Australia's new offshore patrol vessels (recent naval contracts have been a big political issue in Australia). While deletion of the last article that was made by a paid editor was the right outcome, this time things look a bit better. A lot of the sources found by Hawkeye and Nick-D talk about contracts which the company has entered into, they are independent (industry publications or respected city newspapers) and have substantial coverage of work that the company does. In addition, there are more sources than just those which Hawkeye and Nick-D have provided. As another example, this one from the West Australian on the company's expansion to fit the new shipping contract. I have changed my !vote to keep above. Deus et lex (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources provided by Hawkeye and Nick-D seem to meet WP:GNG to me. There are a few others also available through Google Scholar and I suspect that ProQuest and other databases may provide others also: [7]. The Navy contract will see further coverage in the years to come, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as per the request of Deus et lex below and as ATD. Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that's not true, the industry publications that are sourced in the article are independent sources. The fact that they quote the company, etc. does not mean that a source is unreliable, that's just what journalists do. You can look up Civmec's media releases if you like, they are published by the company on their website, all of the articles go well beyond what the media releases say. The articles quoted are not just media releases issued by the company. In any case, there are a number of independent sources that sourced in the article, and not all of the indepenent sources listed above in this discussion that show notability have been added to the article. This is a significant company holding a significant defence contract for Australia's military, it has clear notability, it is not some random company trying to promote itself on Wikipedia. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You need to pay attention to WP:ORGIND. I've no problem with a journalist examining a Press Release and adding their own analysis or opinion but in circumstances where the journalist is simply changing a word or paragraph structure but still regurgitating the company information, that fails our test for "Independent Content". Perhaps its "what journalists do" in most cases but for us here, those references cannot be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - that is unfortunately how the media works these days, about 75% of what you see in newspapers (particularly business sections) is taken from company press releases - that's a lot of how they get stories, so I don't think it's right to set too high of a standard (even though I agree only notable companies fit the standard, I'd just say this is one that does). Regardless, I'd still say that some of the sources in the article are not only taken from press releases (3, 11, 13 and 31 for example - and at least 3 is substantially about the company). Deus et lex (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response OK, so you've now gone from "they're not PR not Company Announcements" to admitting that they are, in fact, PR and company announcements. Complaints about how strict WP:NCORP is or isn't doesn't belong at an AfD either. Finally, references that rely entirely on interviews and materials provided by the company are also not acceptable for notability. The bottom line is this - if the company is truly notable, somebody *else* will write about them. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response - I'm not admitting that they aren't independent sources at all. I merely pointed out 3 examples that go well beyond any media release and where there clearly isn't a corresponding media release, to show you that there are independent sources. Just about all of them go beyond the media releases in some way, shape or form. I think it's unfair that I do all this work and yet you continue to try to judge this article with by much higher standard that isn't shown to lots of other articles. This is a notable Australian company with a major defence contract and it's been covered in countless sources. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Most construction and engineering company articles have a heavy reliance on cites announcing projects. Occasionally there may be a book or feature article, but largely articles such as this rely on announcements from the client (which often is government), or the company itself. Given that the latter are stock exchange announcements, they can be considered reliable given that making a misleading statement to a stock exchange is illegal. Then the news agencies and trade publications pick it up. Certainly applies in the case of the two biggest constructions companies in Australia; CIMIC Group and Lendlease. While not the biggest company, it's not the corner store either.

That said a fair bit of verbosity has been added into the article, with every mention seemingly shoehorned in. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. The article should reflect the company's key activities and projects rather than going chapter and verse into every project it had an involvement in or expressed an interest in. See the above mentioned companies as examples. I have rewritten along the same lines as others Australian construction and engineering companies. Plinjit (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except that what HighKing says is entirely wrong. Deus et lex (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not it isn't. I did read your rebuttal of HighKing above, and thought HighKing's arguments are more relevant. Also, trying to WP:BLUDGEON every person who holds a different opinion to yours will not help your cause. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Giving due weight to the two comments immediately above, per HighKing. Pretty sure he has a better grasp on what constitutes notability after 13 years than Deus et lex has garnered in 8 months, and HKs analysis is spot on. Trade rags are virtually always created from press releases and if you want others to believe that somehow the one you're touting is different, the burden is on you to make arguments to WP:RS about the source to convince others. Notability and importance have no relationship; other people have objected to the quality of your sources. You're not going to change anyone's mind by simply asserting over and over that your analysis is correct. 174.212.222.202 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note this comes from an editor with a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia. This comment should be disregarded entirely. Deus et lex (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another incorrect analysis. I edit from a dynamic IP that changes daily. I've been editing here for 15 years. So please, explain how the source you're touting meets WP:RS, or how the subject meets any notability criteria rather than just repeatedly stating how important the subject is. Oh, by the way, I also endorse WP:SALT due to the history of UPE. At least then, it will have to be recreated in draft space and can be reviewed prior to publication. 174.212.222.202 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop making personal comments, I'm not "touting" a source, and they are not "my" sources, I don't have anything to do with this article and I had never edited it before this AfD came along, my only role is that I have assisted along with a couple of other editors in improving the article (check the history if you don't believe me), and I actually changed my view after actually reading some of the sources. My sole concern is that articles shouldn't just be deleted on the say-so of editors who are inclined towards deleting things on a whim, based on poor reasoning from something that isn't actually reflected in the sources. Rather than making picky comments, I suggest you go and read the article and review the sourcing yourself. There are a number of sources in the article (from a variety of different publications, including industry and non-industry sources) that discuss the company's activities, particularly its military contracts. Between all of there is sufficient information to show that the company has been significantly discussed by independent sources and that is enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. And in relation to the comment about paid editing, there is absolutely no evidence that there has been paid editing on this version of the article, and the holding of the major defence contract means that it is likely that the company will continue to receive independent coverage until 2029 while the contract is underway. Deus et lex (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator/user - I ask that you consider that this is a company that holds a significant Australian military contract. There are a number of sources quoted in the article and in this discussion that talk about this company in detail and go into its activities (particularly on the military work). It does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and has been significantly improved with sources added since this AfD was started (both industry and non-industry publications). The last version of the article was clearly not notable and was rightly deleted, but this one has been a significant improvement and editors have worked together to significantly improve it. I should also note, that under Wikipedia policies, deletion should only be considered if there is no alternative to deletion. There is a very clear and appropriate merge alternative here, the company's subsidiary which already has an article Forgacs Marine and Defence. That must be considered before the article is deleted. Deus et lex (talk)
  • Deus et lex, any editor can close an AfD, and the only restriction on who can close an AfD is they cannot have participated in the discussion. We don't have "moderators". They do not analyze the article at all, and are not allowed to do so. See WP:SUPERVOTE. I get you feel this article belongs, but none of your arguments are addressing the reason it's nominated. You are taking this way too personally and it's clear you have some serious misunderstandings on what WP:N means and how this process works. I'd strongly suggest reading the instructions for commenting here contained in a box at the top right. If you're still not understanding the process, please enquire at WP:TEAHOUSE. 174.212.222.202 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm entitled to make an argument about why the article should be kept. The AfD was made on the basis of alleged paid editing but the article has significantly expanded and changed from that. I've commented on countless AfDs and I'm well aware of the process. Deus et lex (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have participated in "countless" AfDs, then you are presumably aware of WP:RESPECT. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment deleted, apologies. Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment - In response to the criticisms of a number of editors above, I have put my money where my mouth is and significantly expanded the article and added a number of additional sources that support the notability of the company's civil engineering and naval work. The article should now be assessed on the current state, not as it started. If the consensus is still that this is not notable according to Wikipedia's standards (which I would significantly disagree with - and I have done my best to expand the article enough to try to show that that isn't the case), given the significant amount of work I have now done to improve this from what this article looked like when the AfD began, I ask that this be at least draftified to allow an opportunity to improve it enough. There are a lot of sources on the company. Deus et lex (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done everything except provide a single source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I agree that as an alternative to deletion you should be allowed to Draftify though. I've changed my !vote above accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deus et lex, are you able to find any analyst reports since the company trades on the stock market? I cannot locate any but analyst reports which profile the company are nearly always acceptable as sources for the establishment of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing, what about this (and this which it links to (you need to register to see it but looks like a comprehensive analysis)? Seems to be independent of the company. I will keep looking. Deus et lex (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deus et lex, that's the type of stuff that is needed except less of a focus just on the stock price and more on the company, the business, their competitors, etc. But this reference at least shows promise and perhaps the closer will Draftify and gives you time to keep looking. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 14 January 2021 (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.