Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASC Shipbuilding

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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASC Shipbuilding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I did a PROD for this in February due to the subjects lack of notability that was endorsed and then subsequently removed. The person who removed it said they agree the article wasn't up to par, but thought a redirect to the parent company's article BAE Systems Australia would be better. Although, they also said it should have more community input before redirecting it. Personally, I think redirect would be a good option. It still doesn't seem to be notable enough of a company to warrant it's own article. Since most (or all) of the sources in the article are primary or extremely trivial and I haven't found anything on them since February that isn't just more of the same. They still might be worth a mention in Wikipedia though. Which is why a redirect seems like the best option. Although I'm leaving it up to other users to decide as was requested. Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are two sources currently in the article that seem far from trivial. ABC News, 2018: "BAE Systems beats Spanish and Italian designs for $35 billion warship building program" and Australian Defence Magazine, 2019: "New digital lab for Hunter class construction". I also see a chapter on the Australian Submarine Corporation in the 1996 book Entrepreneurial Management in the Public Sector. What's wrong with these sources? — Toughpigs (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are non-trivial sources available to demonstrate notability, as per Toughpigs. Deus et lex (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as wrong venue, this is a content thing, doesn't really need an AfD. They will no doubt find plenty of sources for this company but in reality it's likely to get confused with its current name, i.e. the previous company of a similar name. Best to discuss at article talk page as this content needs to go to several places before deletion, there isn't a need for a Prod or deletion debate for a redirect. The actual company is important and the reasons for it are a matter of debate in Australia due to the highly controversial nature of the programme. A redirect review with a long time frame to give enough time would be better, the page isn't promotional so no need to rush that review process as it would take time to integrate, until its integrated this article provides important and notable information not currently replicated. This might not get enough attention from Australian reviewers in its current form. PainProf (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ASC Pty Ltd, it’s a temporary separate entity of the latter, that article could easily accommodate the pertinent information. Cavalryman (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

*Comment Are you sure ASC is more appropriate than BAE. I will note this entity will be around for quite some time (maybe 15 years) and we should be mindful of where it goes. Based off the submarine contract there is likely to be a lot of press on this defence contract beyond what is mentioned here previously. Equally keep doesn't seem quite right. PainProf (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal? Really, you have sources for these predictions, or is this WP:OR? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Lots of nontrivial WP:RS. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination I did a before and several times. So, I have zero clue what your chiding me about. That said, it's possible I didn't find anything because of the multiple name changes they seem to have gone through, Or it could have been that what found was trivial. I don't really remember or even care. Except to point out that attacking the nominator for not doing a before is extremely trite and WP:MILL at this point. Different people find different sources sometimes, or they don't find any at all. That's life. So skip the personal attack next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:AGF Neither "chiding" nor personal attack. Simple statement of fact; and you got the the end of the race without effectively going through the hurdles, i.e., WP:Before. It wasn't about you, but it was about your process. Learn the lesson. And next time don't be so thin-skinned. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep shipbuilding of any level in South Australia is notable and usually politically volatile issue in Australian politics - JarrahTree 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's vast amounts of reporting on the Australian shipbuilding industry, so this will be notable in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2020 (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.