Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance australia

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Surveillance australia

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

Prod removed without reason. NN-company, no noteability asserted. Dr bab 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, seems to be noteable and sourceable after all.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's a slight spammish tone, but I'm pretty convinced notability is asserted by the awarding of Australia's AUD$1 billion Coastwatch contract. As for notability, there are some possible references from the ABC (New planes boost border surveillance, SA company wins big defence contract), and I'm sure there'll be several government sources. --Canley 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment some more government sources: Flight Safety Magazine, the Civil Aircraft Register as a source for the companies fleet (both at CASA), also the Attorney General's Department press release, the Australian Customs Service annual reports, and it's not independent, but the company's submission to Parliament may contain some useful information. The article needs a big cleanup certainly, I'll work on it today if I have time. --Canley 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Canley clearly identifies multiple secondary sources per WP:CORP.Garrie 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News Archives comes up with over 100 hits for this company. [1]. Should be moved to Surveillance Australia. Look forward to Canley's cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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.