Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composites Technology Research Malaysia

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. The nomination is withdrawn per discussion consensus. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composites Technology Research Malaysia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO its better to keep and not to delete this page. The source is reliable and not just depends on a single source. Laskar kern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote for this page to keep, the sources I think reliable and multiple enough. As example : the source from Shepard Media and Flight Global. We all as a military watcher know this both source uses as reference for globally military page and internationally. And not to mentioned the source from the official websites of this company (CTRM). As you can see there was two source from official websites of this company where the first from its parent company (DefTech) and the other one from this company itself as subsidiary (CTRM). There also source from The Edge Market which is very reliable for companies and business matter. Just my thought.Tomahakarf (talk) 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep The article is notable enough to me because the references are taken from its official websites. Not one but two (Parent and Subsidiaries companies). The other references also reliable and strong.Kistara (talk) comment added 9:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Just keep it. Please don't delete. Why want to delete the good and informative article with the good source? Please recheck. If can improve the article then do it and please don't delete. If the source is the reason for deletion I think its nonsense. The source is strong and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.172 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google news search on the subject shows a sufficient number of good results to support WP:GNG. Improve the article with those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: I accept the consensus here. I'm busy right now, but I will do more digging for sources and will attempt to improve the article with them. I'm not able to do this for a couple of days, but I will. If anyone finds any sources, if you want add them to the article, or to the talk page and I will gladly incorporate them. Thank you all. // Timothy :: talk 20:12, 12 August 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.