Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alderon Resource Corp

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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alderon Resource Corp

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

Contested prod where the issues have not been addressed. This company was founded half a year ago and the only claim of notability so far is it being listed on the stock exchange. Moreover the article focuses more on the history of ore mining in Canada and the contribution of various companies instead of explaining the significance of Alderon. Non-notable company, the current article is only soapboxing. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please note that according to Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies), "editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that other search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion."

Alderon Resource Corp's page has been created because wikipedia is an informative vehicle, used as a tool for investors and the general public who wish to obtain more information about a public company and its operations. The Alderon Resource Corp wiki page posted on September 3, 2010, has been rewritten from scratch, while providing reliable sources. Also, a publicly traded company is important enough to satisfy A7 — Stella27 17:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

~~* Keep~~ Claim of notability: This company has been covered by reliable sources, such as Fox News and CCN (Canada News) Stella27 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

~~* Keep~~ Claim of notability: CBC News features Alderon Resource Corp. Stella27 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the CBC source was a youtube clip that can't be used on Wikipedia because the youtube video as such is most likely a copyright violation of the original CBC content. We'd need a direct link to the CBC site (and please sign your talk page contributions by typing four tildes ~~~~ , that will add a time stamp and add your username). And for someone who has only yet written this single article, you seem to be quite well informed about CSD A7. You missed the first sentences of the section on traded companies though: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE, NASDAQ and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case." And two short articles are hardly enough to call it sufficient independent coverage. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you kindly for your comment De728631. I have read a few articles on notability for corporations that explain CSD A7. I will add a few more independent coverages, and conduct further research to satisfy the requirements for notability. --Stella27 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Weird form of WP:COATRACK the first paragraph covers the company the other the region. I think it has came a long way but would reccomend userifying it and having the author have a mentor to help publish it. Even a stub article is ok as long as it meets guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Thank you Hell In A Bucket. The article has been turned into a temporary stub. The previous content will be revised in order to meet the appropriate guidelines. 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub or full article is irrelevant; the company is not notable. It's less than a year old. Google News search finds only press releases. Maybe the article could be userfied in the hope that the company will become more notable in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding relisting for consensus, it should be noted that all "keep" statements have so far come from the page's author User:Luciana Santos, who did not sign with her username. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in here to demonstrate notability.--Talain (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (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.