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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austco[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account Nbuzza (talk · contribs) (Nathan Buzza, COO of Austco )with no other edits other than Nathan Buzza related. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions per WP:CORPDEPTH. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The google search shows no coverage from independent reliable sources thus far. It may be a good company but just not very notable. --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2012 (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.