Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civmec (2nd nomination)
Hey {{u|Deus et lex}} they're *all* regurgitated PR and company announcements. You first need to understand that the standards for references used to support facts/etc within an article are *different* to the standards for references used to establish notability. This AfD is only interested in the latter. Then, you should read  and especially the  section on what an "Independent" source is. It says ''"Independent content"'', in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject'' The links you've posted are all PR and announcements. For example, https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/civmec-to-employ-350-people-for-bma-port-contract/ this announcement contains nothing original and does not contain and independent analysis/investagion/etc. All of the "facts" come straight from the company - which you can validate for yourself if you check out https://www.civmec.com.au/investors-media/news/535-civmec-secures-175m these "News" announcements https://www.civmec.com.au/investors-media/news/542-civmec-awarded-multiple-contracts on the Civmec website. In addition, ORGIND specifically labels ''any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)'' as "Dependent coverage". You can trace every one of your references back to announcements either from the company or from the Press Office of a government department and on reading your references I cannot see anything in those articles that can be regarded as "Independent Content
— User:HighKing, 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND (Wikipedia:Notability)