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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molybdenum Company of South Africa (Pty) Ltd.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search indicates no significant coverage in reliable sources. Possibly a couple of mentions elsewhere but they are passing (-careful to note a Chinese firm of the same name), and insuficient to pass WP:ORGCRITE. Likewise, there is no depth of coverage in the sources provided- they are all primary and self-published, and so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like promotional article ..Sulaimandaud (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-cited & promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2017 (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.