Deletion of Civmec (2nd nomination)

Comment: OK, so you've now gone from "they're not PR not Company Announcements" to admitting that they are, in fact, PR and company announcements. Complaints about how strict  is or isn't doesn't belong at an AfD either. Finally, references that rely entirely on interviews and materials provided by the company are also not acceptable for notability. The bottom line is this - if the company is truly notable, somebody *else* will write about them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: yet another  attempt to create this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:UPE)

Comment: You need to pay attention to . I've no problem with a journalist examining a Press Release and adding their own analysis or opinion but in circumstances where the journalist is simply changing a word or paragraph structure but still regurgitating the company information, that fails our test for "Independent Content". Perhaps its "what journalists do" in most cases but for us here, those references cannot be used to establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: I ask that you consider that this is a company that holds a significant Australian military contract. There are a number of sources quoted in the article and in this discussion that talk about this company in detail and go into its activities (particularly on the military work). It does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and has been significantly improved with sources added since this AfD was started (both industry and non-industry publications). The last version of the article was clearly not notable and was rightly deleted, but this one has been a significant improvement and editors have worked together to significantly improve it. I should also note, that under Wikipedia policies, deletion should only be considered if there is no |alternative to deletion. There is a very clear and appropriate merge alternative here, the company's subsidiary which already has an article Forgacs Marine and Defence. That must be considered before the article is deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Giving due weight to the two comments immediately above, per HighKing. Pretty sure he has a better grasp on what constitutes notability after 13 years than Deus et lex has garnered in 8 months, and HKs analysis is spot on. Trade rags are virtually always created from press releases and if you want others to believe that somehow the one you're touting is different, the burden is on you to make arguments to  about the source to convince others. Notability and importance have no relationship; other people have objected to the quality of your sources. You're not going to change anyone's mind by simply asserting over and over that your analysis is correct. Special:Contributions/174.212.222.202|174.212.222.202
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: enough independent coverage to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: per . Has attracted significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/civmec-to-employ-350-people-for-bma-port-contract/https://im-mining.com/2020/12/15/civmec-tops-iron-bridge-work-new-site-contract/https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/civmec-secures-contracts-worth-a140-millionhttps://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/7322-arafura-opv-program-strengthens-australian-industry-foundationshttps://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/civmec-starts-construction-on-new-125m-submarine-rescue-facility-in-henderson-ng-b881568230z
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The sources given are all announcements of routine business transactions, which  specifically states does not establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)