Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queensland Alumina Limited

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The result was Speedy keep as nominator has rescinded nomination and all !votes are to keep following improving the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Alumina Limited

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

This article has been unreferenced since 2007. The assertion about plant capacity (the major claim) has no citations. A PROD was reverted without improvement. A Google search turned up nothing but routine business announcements (and no production numbers). Rhadow (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Snow Keep - snow on the basis of large amount of refs are easily available - inherent notability against lazy or perhaps disinterested editors over time - large amount of material available on Trove see http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=queensland+alumina - well worth keeping over the nature of the claims in the 1980s of being the largest operation of its sort in the world at that time JarrahTree 00:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - now multiple independent references from independant reliable sources plus Trove ref'd by User:JarrahTree. Paul foord (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as per above. It's already much improved. We do have a shortage of editors interested in working on business articles, but that doesn't alter the fundamental notability of the topic itself. Kerry (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Long standing reporting of many types in multiple reliable sources of several decades. WP:NEXIST romps it in. Aoziwe (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- Conditions that led to the AfD have been resolved. Rhadow (talk) 13:04, 13 October 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.