Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skilled Group

{{ns:0|O}}

:{{la|Skilled Group}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skilled_Group Stats])

:({{Find sources|Skilled Group}})

Entirely neutral at this time, AfD made on behalf of {{U|Pborobokas}} per an edit request on the talk page. Their reasoning can be found there. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in the article suggests the company is notable. Fails WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This is a large company which is regularly covered in the Australian business media. The stories available on the Sydney Morning Herald's website give a flavour of this: [http://www.smh.com.au/execute_search.html?text=%22Skilled+Group%22&ss=smh.com.au], and the Australian Financial Review regularly covers the company: [http://www.afr.com/tags;jsessionid=4BAC1007432286C19B8BBB3CD103A79C?tag=C-SKILLED-GROUP-LIMITED&code=SKE] Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - large, publicly listed, widely commented on company. There are ample independant sources to write a good article - Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:: can you please provide examples of these sources? LibStar (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Have you seen the sources I've provided above? {{ping|WWGB}} you might want to consider these as well. Regards, Nick-Dtalk) 11:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Also a member of the S&P/ASX 200 - for more information see their listing on the ASX website: [http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/companyInfo.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=SKE] Ltobrien

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that User:Pborobokas appear to have a serious COI on this article (judging from his edits to the article, and comments left on my talkpage), and have subsequently been blocked for personal attacks. Bjelleklang - talk 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Skilled is a very small cap stock on the ASX (market cap less than 700 million). The Abbot gov has called an enquiry into the building industry on corruption. Labour hire firms including SKILLED will be called to answer which may reduce their size significantly. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/union-officials-accused-of-taking-bribes-from-labour-hire-firm/5248242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K of the net (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 February 2014‎
• Comment: Size doesn't matter. Also, if we can find a source connecting the linked investigation to Skilled it may actually help show notability. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The royal commission has not started yet, but the concept of labour hire has also been called into question by senator Eric Abetz. It is mentioned in the above that SKILLED is a large company, they are in fact a very small cap stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K of the net (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The suggestion that the size of the subject of the article may shrink because of an inquiry into the building industry is crystal balling. While an inquiry may shake up the industry, and bring down companies involved in unlawful practices, it is not going to be the end of the labour hire industry. As a major player in the industry, Skilled are likely to be called to give evidence, but as hasn't been mentioned (AFAIK) as one of the of the offending companies, then K of the net's assumptions that Skilled Group may contract are without merit. DCB1927 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Not withstanding the article needs significant expansion and appears to have serious issues in particular COI, the discussion on the talk page and this AfD indicate the company is both notable and controversial and that the depth of coverage is likely to increase further given the royal commission. I cannot see any justification for deletion particularly since recreation of deleted articles is rarely without difficulties. I can see potential to improve the article and would consider expanding it myself when I have the time. Dfadden (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Article does need expansion, but there is sufficient history and is of a size to warrant its retention. DCB1927 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability, although issues with article text. I should note my keep vote in this case reflects policy, not my own personal inclinations that a labour hire firm really doesn't merit an article. Orderinchaos 17:04, 28 February 2014 (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.